Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]

Considered: to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Catalytic Converters

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reduction in levels of carbon dioxide emissions is brought about by the use of catalytic converters.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): None, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that catalytic converters are not the complete answer to the problem and that it is most important to develop a strategy to control carbon dioxide emissions and the so-called greenhouse effect on the atmosphere?

Mrs. Bottomley: We have always recognised that catalytic converters play an important part in controlling car emissions, but they do not do the whole job because they have no effect on carbon dioxide emissions. The three-way catalyst rules out the use of lean-burn engines, which offers a promising way of saving fuel and reducing carbon dioxide. The United Kingdom treats carbon dioxide emissions and climate change with great seriousness and it is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is today hosting a seminar on global climate.

Mr. Turner: Is the Minister aware of the excellent campaign being launched in my part of the world by the Wolverhampton Express and Star inviting companies large and small, local authorities and the private motorist to go lead-free? Even I have gone lead-free as a result of its persuasion. Would the Minister care to make a statement on that?

Mrs. Bottomley: The campaign run by the Wolverhampton Express and Star has been mentioned to me by several hon. Members and I have met the journalist, Marion Brennan, who has worked so hard on the campaign. It has performed a magnificent task and we wish it well this weekend when it hopes to adjust 1,000 cars in one day and thus get into the "Guinness Book of Records".

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Last but not least in my green dress, I thank my hon. Friend for those sentiments and join my colleague the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) in supporting the lead that the Wolverhampton Express and Star has taken in encouraging people to use unleaded petrol. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that unleaded petrol should, be made widely available in Britain so that cars fitted with the latest emission control technology can be sold here?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is right. The widespread use of unleaded petrol paves the way for the stricter emission standards that we shall be introducing in Britain. The Wolverhampton experience is magnificient. I understand that 50 of its 52 garages are now stocking unleaded petrol, which means that when we introduce the stricter emission standards there will be no difficulty in complying with them.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Minister aware that car exhausts make a significant and growing contribution to greenhouse gases and that the European standards of allowable car emissions are 400 times more polluting than those of the United States? The imposition of United States standards in Europe was supported by Tory Euro-MPs only this April, but it is opposed by the British Government, who intend to veto the move in the Council of Ministers. Once again, Britain is seen in Europe as the friend of the polluter and the enemy of the environment.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that in our view the way to protect the environment is by sound science and responsible action, rather than hot air and toxic words. We shall, of course, be considering the vote in the European Parliament. I have made it absolutely clear that catalysts—either oxidation or three-way catalysts—have an important part to play in protecting the environment. We have no wish, however, to rule out the use of lean-burn engines, which offer very important savings in reduced carbon dioxide and in increased fuel efficiency.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Minister stop ducking awkward questions and trying to cause confusion? There is no fundamental conflict between catalytic converters and lean-burn engines, which have not even been developed. Will the Minister take action now to ensure that existing technology is applied in this country to reduce the greenhouse effect? Will she also recognise that if the Prime Minister is to be properly briefed she must be told that the best way to reduce the greenhouse effect is to use existing technology to promote energy conservation rather than multiplying the number of nuclear power stations being built?

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should brush up on his GCSE science. Three-way catalytic converters entail greater use of fuel and increased production of carbon dioxide. We shall, of course, be considering carefully the Commission's response to the European Parliament before deciding on the best way forward. The Government have already accepted the strict emission standards agreed in November in the Luxembourg package and we are determined that air emissions from motor cars of a variety of types should be dealt with properly and effectively.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Charles Wardle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs would be involved in introducing a system of local government finance based on capital values and a local income tax.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Gummer): The Labour party's two-tax system could cost up to four times as much to administer as the existing rating system.

Mr. Wardle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. Does he agree that a local income tax system would do very little to improve accountability, would be complex as well as expensive, and would be grossly unfair to all inner-city residents, while a capital value system would be a disaster for many people in London on relatively low incomes whose house values have risen rapidly?

Mr. Gummer: The two-tax system proposed by Labour would produce all the worst aspects of all the other systems. It would produce the worst side of the rating system and the worst side of local income tax. Last year a ward sister in my hon. Friend's constituency earning £13,000 per year and living in a flat in Bexhill would have faced a community charge of £196, compared with £425 under the Labour scheme.[Interruption.] It is no wonder that Labour Members are trying to make enough noise to drown out the facts about their scheme.

Mr. Wardle: Labour will never win Bexhill now. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will try to settle down.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister confirm that, quite apart from being immoral, the poll tax will cost a great deal more to collect than the existing rates system?

Mr. Gummer: First, the community charge will cost about half as much as the Labour party's scheme would. Secondly, I hope soon to be able to send the hon. Gentleman a pamphlet on the morality of the community charge.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity between now and the county elections next Thursday to explain to the 65 per cent. of owner-occupiers in this country that the financing of local government partly by capital valuation would amount to no more than a wealth tax and would hit especially hard pensioners and people on fixed incomes throughout the nation? Will my right hon. Friend also take this opportunity to denounce the campaign of fear and distortion by Labour party headquarters in Walworth road and the issuing of letters by Labour-controlled local authorities provoking fear and concern about the cost of the community charge?

Mr. Gummer: The community charge is fairer because everybody pays their bit. It is fairer because those who cannot afford it get help with the cost. It is also fairer because it makes a local council accountable. It is the last reason that the Labour party hates, because for the first time councils will be accountable to the electorate rather than to their local management committees and to Militant.

Dr. Cunningham: Why are the Tories running so scared about the poll tax that they have to wrack themselves with dishonesty about the issues? Why are Ministers so terrified that they postponed the canvass to introduce the poll tax until after the county council elections? If the poll tax is so good, why have the Government refused to debate the six poll tax orders currently on the Table before 4 May? If the poll tax is so good, why do the Government keep ducking those issues? In view of the Minister's remark that everyone will pay something, will he explain why at the Tory party local government conference the Prime Minister wrongly and dishonestly said that under the poll tax—[Interruption.] Yes, dishonestly.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw "dishonestly".

Dr. Cunningham: The Prime Minister said, wrongly and misleadingly, that 5 million people will pay nothing under the poll tax proposals. How does the Minister explain that? The Minister says that the poll tax is fairer. Perhaps he will also explain—[Interruption.] We have listened to enough drivel from the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) and for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway). Perhaps the Minister will also explain why it is that people with incomes as low as £54 per week will receive no poll tax rebate.

Mr. Gummer: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask all those questions when he has refused to answer the simplest questions about his own party's proposals. He is afraid that on the doorstep Labour's two-tax scheme will be given the thumbs down by millions of people throughout the country. Five million people will receive 80 per cent. rebates, and they will receive money to cover the other 20 per cent. in their benefits. In effect, therefore, they will not pay the poll tax. They will not pay the poll tax because it is not a poll tax. The Labour party keeps using the term "poll tax" because it wants to confuse the public and make them believe that everybody will pay the same. Nine million people will have a rebate. Labour councils are trying to frighten people by pretending that they will not get help. When the hon. Gentleman comes clean about the worst proposal for local tax since the window tax, we shall begin to answer his silly questions.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I gather that the county council elections are some time next week, but right hon. and hon. Members should keep to the subject of questions to Ministers and deal with them in a responsible way.

Rivers

Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to change the penalties currently available for breaches of discharge consents into rivers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): The maximum penalties that may be imposed by magistrates for offences under section 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 are fines not exceeding £2,000 and terms of imprisonment of up to three months. On indictment in the Crown court there is no limit on the fine that may be imposed, and terms


of imprisonment can be up to two years. Penalties for pollution offences are kept under regular review but there are no immediate plans for increasing them.

Mr. Knight: Is there not a good case for making farms and businesses which break the law and pollute rivers pay the cost of cleaning them up? Does my hon. Friend agree that one current problem is that water authorities are both gamekeepers and poachers? Should not the whole House warmly welcome the establishment of the independent National Rivers Authority as the only effective way of clamping down on those who unlawfully pollute our waterways?

Mr. Moynihan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about the effectiveness of the National Rivers Authority. At present, water authorities are empowered to recover the cost of work to prevent or to remedy pollution. We firmly believe in an extension of the principle that the polluter pays.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that one of Britain's worst industrial polluters is the so-called smokeless fuel plant in my constituency owned by British Coal? Is he aware that twice in the past three months that company has been found guilty of, and fined for, discharging pollutants into the river at six to nine times the permitted level? How does the Minister intend to get British Coal to clean up its act? Is he aware that according to the Welsh Development Agency the existence of the works is a major disincentive to bringing new jobs into the worst unemployment black spot in the whole of Wales?

Mr. Moynihan: As the hon. Lady knows, I am unaware of that particular case and would not have responsibility for it as it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. However, giving due courtesy to the hon. Lady's question, I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the reasons why both business and agriculture continue to discharge pollutants into rivers, apart from the fact that they do not economically care very much, is that when they are hauled before the courts the fines are so small—nothing approaching the £2,000 to which the Minister referred—that they are not effective? Does the Minister agree that until the courts impose realistic fines, the poisoning of our rivers and harbours will continue?

Mr. Moynihan: The Government agree that fines should he at a deterrent and not a nominal level. That is why my right hon. Friend the former Lord Chancellor urged magistrates to impose fines for pollution offences sufficient to act as a deterrent. I accept my hon. Friend's point and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has again drawn the attention of magistrates to the need to impose realistic fines for water pollution offences.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister agree that it is not only the level of fines that is important but the frequency of prosecution? Is it not a fact that many polluters take a calculated risk that it is cheaper to pollute a river and risk a rare prosecution and a small fine than to invest in controlled pollution prevention? Is the Minister aware that his concern on this issue is not taken seriously in the light of the Government's decision to exempt from prosecution

many sewage treatment plants which are in breach of their consents? When can we expect some consistency from the Minister on the principle that the polluter should pay?

Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Lady will continue to have total consistency from the Government when it comes to the importance of upgrading sewage treatment plants. That is why we are putting £1 billion behind that programme by 1992. I totally refute the hon. Lady's initial premise. It is obviously important to make sure that programmes of remedial treatment are put in action and agreed with the Department. That is the first and foremost priority and it will be reinforced by the National Rivers Authority.

Mr. Allason: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very grave disquiet in South Devon about the Hope's Nose outfall, and has he seen the latest photograph of the discharge of untreated sewage, even if the photograph is three years old? Does he agree with me that it is unacceptable to have untreated sewage pumped either into our rivers or into the sea?

Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the facts about the picture published recently to the attention of the House. He will be aware that the Government share his concern that we need major improvements. That is why we are committing substantial capital expenditure towards achieving the very improvements that he and the House seek.

Urban Development Corporations

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations publish a code of consultation with local authorities in their areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): As required by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, all urban development corporations have prepared or are in the course of preparing codes of practice as to consultation with the local authorities in their areas. UDCs are not required to publish them.

Mr. McKay: According to evidence given to the Select Committee on Employment, the London Docklands Development Corporation failed to provide such a document in 1982. It took the corporation another seven years to find it. Is that not a clear contravention of section 140 of the 1980 Act? Will the Minister ensure that the requirement is complied with by all development corporations, both in spirit and intent?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman. We have made it clear to all UDCs and to local authorities in the areas in which UDCs operate that they should consult one another. As I indicated in my substantive reply, if they both agree, they should publish.

Mr. Knapman: On the subject of underused land, can my hon. Friend confirm that the canal port of Sharpness in my constituency faces a bright and prosperous future, and that three factories are currently being built in the area? Can he also confirm—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called the hon. Gentleman to ask a supplementary to question 4.

Mr. Knapman: Yes, Sir—on the subject of under-used land. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is question 5."]

Mr. Speaker: Out by one.

Mr. Simon Hughes: There is considerable concern in London about the delay in setting up any consultation process in the docklands. Will the Minister consider introducing an amendment to the Local Government and Housing Bill to allow parish councils to be constituted in the docklands corporation part of London, which would fulfil such a purpose?

Mr. Trippier: The simple, straightforward answer is no. I am not aware of a problem with consultation at present. Indeed, it is my clear impression that consultation with local authorities in the LDDC area is better than it has ever been.

Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the damage and danger caused by lack of consultation, which applies particularly to the LDDC, because of its failure to consult adequately and the lack of proper social facilities? Is the Minister aware that the errors that have been made include failure to match the provision of transport and other services, and failure to consider what the development is for and who will gain and who will lose?
Will he investigate what is happening in the London docklands area? In the words of Sir Andrew Derbyshire,
the free play of market forces is not going to produce the best results in terms of quality".
Mr. C. J. Shepley, president of the royal town planning institute, has said:
I fear that in 25 years we will look back on Docklands in exactly the same way that we now look back on 1960s housing schemes.
In other words, we shall see it as a total failure.

Mr. Trippier: I entirely reject all that the hon. Gentleman has said. He and his colleagues should break the habit of a lifetime and say something nice and positive about urban development corporations, especially the LDDC. The corporation's single-minded and single-purpose approach has regenerated an area of London which has been stagnant in the past and was certainly going downhill under the last Labour Administration. We have revived it, creating wealth and work. That means jobs, and the hon. Gentleman should recognise that.

Land

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land were added to the register in the last five years, and how many were removed, in 1988.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land will be removed from the register as a result of the privatisation of the water authorities.

Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of unused and underused land will be removed from the register as a result of the privatisation of the electricity boards.

Mr. Trippier: A total of 37,805 acres were added to the registers in the five years up to the end of 1988, and 10,943 acres were removed in 1988.
In all 2,933 acres of electricity board land and 2,243 acres of water authority land are currently on the register. I cannot predict what the figures will be immediately prior to privatisation.

Mr. Steen: Does my hon. Friend realise that 17 per cent. of all land—vacant, public, derelict, dormant land —on the register in 1983 has been disposed of, but that 83 per cent. remains on the register? In his answer my hon. Friend said that more than 37,000 additional acres of public land—vacant, dormant and under-utilised—had been added to the register. Is he aware that even without any extra land being added it will take more than 30 years to get rid of the surplus public land that is vacant and it will cost the Government about £19 million in Civil Service costs to the Department to run the register for that period? Surely my hon. Friend should do something more dramatic. Why does he not auction off the land?

Mr. Trippier: I think that my hon. Friend is being unfair. If he looks carefully at the figures he will see that the Department's policy has been very successful. Since 1981, 164,900 acres have been entered on the register. By 31 March 1989, 80,700 acres had been removed, which is about half, mostly because the owners had sold it or brought it into use. There were then 84,200 acres on the register. There has been a net reduction of half in a very short time, and I consider that most impressive.

Mr. Baker: Does my hon. Friend accept none the less that the amount of unused and underused land on and off the register is still far too large? Will he do everything that he can to ensure that that land is brought into use? Does he agree that without in any way avoiding the planning rules, weak as they are, the privatisation of water will help to bring some of that unused and underused land into use to save our green fields and our environment?

Mr. Trippier: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's last comment. The difference between land in private ownership and land in public ownership is that the publicly owned land is not subject to the market conditions and disciplines which apply in the private sector. Of course I am not satisfied—it would be silly for me to say that I was—with the amount of public land registered as unused and underused. But we are making significant strides in reducing that amount. Ministers in various Departments should set an example to local authorities, and we are undergoing a period of consultation to produce a code of practice which will enable us to set that example.

Mr. Bevan: Why is my hon. Friend so resistant to bringing more public vacant land on to the market by the utilisation of the public land urban management scheme, which is supported by nearly 200 Conservative Members, or by some other private scheme which will result in an even greater amount of public land being brought into beneficial use for society?

Mr. Trippier: My answer is very simple and straightforward. My right hon. Friend and I have listened very carefully to the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) and we are not convinced that the PLUMS alternative is in any way better than the existing system. As I have said in my substantive and supplementary replies, we are achieving the desired objective in a speedy fashion.

Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister comment on the extending and intensifying problem of land which is surplus to British Coal's requirements as a result of the rapid contraction of that industry? I think that he recognises, but will he maintain, that we need urgently a dramatic, imaginative and extensive additional programme of derelict land grant?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed the matter at some length in the past. I was pleased to respond to his request and to give an additional allocation to the Dearne Valley after he showed me round his constituency and explained the problems that exist there. I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment recognise that where there are mining closures there needs to be a concentration of derelict land grant. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have met his concern, at least for the moment.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister bear in mind that some unused land is available as a green lung to urban areas such as Low Moor in my constituency? Will he ensure that local authorities do not try to corrupt the local plan to avoid submitting proposals for change to his Department so that the wishes of local residents to keep areas of unused land are frustrated—particularly in areas such as Low Moor, where there are two major chemical plants—because areas of unused land are an extremely valuable asset in those circumstances?

Mr. Trippier: That is entirely a matter for planning legislation. I maintain that planning controls in that respect are very tight and very effective.

Planning Zones

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been set up since their introduction; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): In England, simplified planning zones have been adopted and brought into operation by Derby and Corby. Schemes are at various stages of preparation in Birmingham, Rotherham, Cleethorpes, Glanford and Scunthorpe, Enfield and Slough. Other authorities are considering possible designations.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the response by local authorities and others has been somewhat disappointing? Does he agree that some of the obstacles placed in the way of entrepreneurs and developers, who are trying to regenerate our inner cities and urban areas, are put there by planners and planning regulations, which, in turn, puts more pressure on green field sites to be made available. Is it not, therefore, important to encourage the greater use of simplified planning zones? If my right hon. Friend agrees with that, can he tell the House how he intends to go about encouraging councils and developers to set up more simplified planning zones?

Mr. Ridley: I agree that it is somewhat disappointing that so few simplified planning zones have come forward and I agree that the existence of a relaxed planning regime is an essential ingredient in getting redevelopment going in derelict industrial areas. The difficulties often stem from

councils—sometimes even under Labour control—having an antipathy to relinquishing their detailed powers of development. I do not know why they should have that antipathy if they believe in the renewed prosperity of their areas. I wish that there was something that I could do to encourage them to be more bold. The electorate will have a chance to do something fairly soon at the coming county council elections.

Mr. Loyden: Does the Secretary of State agree that in the climate that exists in many inner cities, the value of planning has been demeaned by economic and financial pressures and that planning permission is given which is not necessarily to the long-term benefit of those who have to live in inner cities? The marjority of people who live in green sites areas see what little there is in the inner cities in terms of land available for leisure, which is at a minimum, to say the least.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman, who comes from a declining industrial area in one of our inner cities, must realise that there is a choice between detailed and over-fussy planning control and the regeneration of areas leading to jobs for the people and the rebuilding of prosperity in his city. He seems to imply that he is taking the wrong choice in that dilemma.

Community Charge

Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish tables showing the average community charge in each local authority if introduced in 1989—90; and if he will make figures available arranged by reference to the controlling party in each such authority.

Mr. Gummer: As last year, the illustrative figures will be published once we have obtained and analysed the data needed from local authorities.

Mr. Franks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that roughly £4 out of every spent in county council areas is spent by the county councils themselves and that the level of community charge over the next few years will be determined largely by which party gains control of county halls next week? Is that not the best reason why in counties such as Cumbria, which has a minority Labour administration sustained by Liberal support, the electorate should vote Conservative for lower community charges and better value for money?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the 10 councils with the lowest rate poundage are all Conservative. None of the 10 with the highest rate poundage are Conservative. The community charge will reflect largely whether there is a prudent authority in county hall or whether Labour, which is always followed as fast as possible by the SLD, Liberals and the rest, continues to control them. It is good to see one Liberal present in the Chamber.

Mr. Pike: If the poll tax had anything to do with accountability, as the Government have claimed repeatedly, why did they not accept the option when the Local Government Bill was going through Parliament to allow county councils to collect their own poll tax? Is it not true that areas such as north-east Lancashire will have massive


increases in the poll tax next year, regardless of political control, because the Government will give less money to local government to run essential local services?

Mr. Gummer: The community charge will be collected by district councils, just as the rates are. It will be quite clear from the bill which portion comes from the county council. In Lancashire, it will be clear that Lancashire county council has been over-spending permanently during the period of Labour control.

Mr. Oppenheim: In the black roll of dishonour of the highest spending county councils in England and Wales, does not Derbyshire have a prominent and special place as one of the most irresponsible, profligate and high-spending councils in the country? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if people in Derbyshire want a lower community charge next year the best way to achieve that is to vote out the pack of pocket Lenins who have made Derbyshire among the highest-rated counties?

Mr. Gummer: Derbyshire is, in fact, the worst-run county in Britain and until this year it had the highest rate in England. It has just been beaten by Labour-controlled Cleveland. The only way in which Derbyshire ratepayers can get a reasonable deal is to remove the leader and his followers of Derbyshire county council, which has a bad record of overspending and underproviding. The cost per library book in Derbyshire is unbelievably high because its services are unbelievably badly run.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Why did the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) sign an early-day motion in support of Derbyshire county council's initiative in connection with Toyota if he feels that it is such a disastrous authority? What will be the impact of the poll tax on local authorities in view of the fact that figures published yesterday show that 35,000 people are missing from the electoral register in Liverpool, 14,000 from the electoral register in Glasgow, 14,000 in Manchester and 9,000 in Birmingham?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the electoral register is wholly different from the community charge register. The only reason why anybody should make the mistake that they are the same is because of Labour party propaganda using the phrase "poll tax". If anybody is off the register for that reason, it is the dishonesty of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that has led them in that direction.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gummer: I withdraw the word "dishonesty" and substitute "misleading".

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend consider the point that has just been made by the Opposition spokesman for the environment, the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in view of the fact that Toyota has just come to Derbyshire? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason Toyota may have come to Derbyshire is that we will have a uniform business rate which will mean that businesses will not be put at a disadvantage by loony Left-wing councils, such as Derbyshire county council?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. Had the present system continued, Derbyshire county council would have

continued to push business out of Derbyshire by imposing high rates. Now it cannot force jobs out of Derbyshire because the uniform business rate will bring down the rates in high-rated Labour authorities and ensure that there are more jobs in the areas of the country that most need them. That shows once again that we are giving to each according to his need and taking from each according to his ability.

Dr. Cunningham: Is it not typical of the confused double standards of the Tory party that Conservative Members congratulate Derbyshire on its successful attraction of the Toyota investment—one of the biggest inward investments ever to come to Britain—and then, for their own naked political opportunism, come here and abuse the same county? As the Minister of State mentioned rate poundages, may I remind him that people do not pay rate poundages, they pay rate bills? May I also remind him that the counties with the highest average domestic rate bills are Buckinghamshire, which is Tory-controlled, where the average rate bill is £664, and Surrey, which is also Tory-controlled, where the average rate bill is £614, and that the three counties with the lowest average rates bills are all Labour-controlled—Durham Lancashire and Cumbria?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman represents the party that wants people to pay higher and higher rates on the value of their houses; the party that would exacerbate that unfairness by increasing the cost in all those areas where the value of housing is high and decreasing it in other areas. The only fairness is to consider the rate poundage. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the present rating system, which is why he opposes the community charge. The community charge will make the system fair.

Mr. Hanley: If my right hon. Friend publishes projected figures for the community charge, will he make sure that he publishes the figures for the five years following the year in question so that my constituents will see the reduction caused by the removal of the safety net, which at present penalises those living in outer London boroughs?

Mr. Gummer: I cannot publish the figures because I do not know what the local authority will spend in each of those successive years. Every pound per adult that a local authority overspends means an extra pound on the community charge. That is why the Labour party hates the community charge—because it means that every time they spend an extra pound on the police monitoring committee or on special arrangements for the gay bereavement cause, that pound goes directly on to what is paid by the ratepayers. The community charge produces a fair system because everybody knows whether a local authority is overspending. If one looks, for example, at the local authorities in London, one has to say that overspending has become a way of life.
Until we have the community charge, places such as Ealing, Tower Hamlets and Camden will never begin to cut their coats according to their cloth.

Pollution Inspectorate

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to retain the existing district structure of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

Mr. Ridley: No Sir. We are currently reorganising the field force of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution on an integrated basis to produce a much more effective deployment of resources. A three-region structure is being developed covering the north, south-west and south-east. This approach was adopted to ensure large enough management units to secure an adequate mix of skills to match the varying types of processes subject to control by the inspectorate.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern that exists among local authorities and industrialists lest the Government's proposals for restructuring the inspectorate result in a loss of continuity at local level, with knowledge that has been built up locally over many years being lost? Will the Government further consider these local elements?

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The new streamlined organisation that we are proposing will greatly facilitate the integration of control of pollution to the three elements—air, water and land —which of course was the point of the integration, which is why the solution that we propose is a good one. The hon. Gentleman may be referring to the fact that one of the five deputy chief inspectors left to take up a post in the private sector. But, then, so did Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk. Another of the chief inspectors resigned after changing his mind about some of the detailed aspects of the reorganisation proposals. That is exactly what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) did.

Mr. Knapman: Relating to pollution and possibly to underused land, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the port of Sharpness in my constituency has a prosperous future, with three new factories being built? Can he also confirm that it is not suitable as a site for a toxic waste dump, despite rumours to the contrary?

Mr. Ridley: I can confirm that there are no sites taking hazardous waste in the Sharpness area or indeed anywhere in my hon. Friend's constituency and that there are no plans for any such hazardous waste sites there. If any hazardous waste site were to be proposed near the Sharpness canal or any other area in the lower reaches of the Severn, there would be severe water pollution problems, and that would be strictly against the provisions of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. In addition, the necessary consents would, of course, be required.

Ms. Walley: Does the Secretary of State agree that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is in a complete mess? It is still unable to recruit staff. Is he aware that Dr. Martin Biggs, who heads the local authority unit in Birmingham, is still working from his front room at home because after eight months it has not been possible to find an office for him? How can the Secretary of State justify the departure from the organisation of HMIP at district level, which used the local knowledge of local authorities? On this very day of all days, when supposedly such urgent discussions are taking place at Downing street, why will he not come to the House and tell us that he will take effective action to ensure that the country has the integrated pollution control system that it needs.

Mr. Ridley: I have come to the House, abandoning the important discussions to which the hon. Lady referred. I am disappointed that I have had to come to the House to

deal with such a piffling point. The hon. Lady is wrong. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is in very good health. The organisation has had to be changed. It is being improved. I think that it would help the cause of protecting the environment if the hon. Lady were to stop trying to make quick, cheap points of the sort that she has just tried to make.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the case for a system of local government finance based on capital value rates and local income tax; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: Not surprisingly, I have received scarcely any representations in favour of Labour's two-tax system, which would be cripplingly expensive, would do virtually nothing to restore local accountability, and would replicate the unfairnesses of existing domestic rates.

Mr. Bennett: Is it not the case that two of the many disadvantages of Labour's twin-tax policy would be that under a local income tax Labour councils could bleed their residents dry and under the capital value tax residents would have to pay increases every time house prices rose, irrespective of increases in income? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the silence of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) on the issue is due to the realisation that Labour has shot itself in the foot again?

Mr. Gummer: There is a serious problem about a capital value tax because four out of 10 people who live in more expensive houses have less than average incomes and, therefore, would not have the means to pay the tax. The truth is that Labour Members no longer wish to talk about their tax system because they found it so unpopular on the doorstep.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Minister realise that the electors whom he is trying to reach with his statements today will treat his remarks about the Labour party's proposal with disdain because they recall that it is not so long ago that he, other Ministers and Conservative Back Benchers were dismissing the poll tax with equal disdain and saying that it was iniquitous and would never be brought in? Now they have changed their minds.

Mr. Gummer: I am happy to say that I have been a supporter of the community charge, not just since the Government proposed it. The reason that I am a supporter is that it is fairer first, because everbody pays his bit, secondly, because everybody who needs help gets it, and thirdly, because it means that the local community has control over what the local council spends on its behalf. None of those three things applies to the two-tax Labour scheme.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: My right hon. Friend will know that Clifton estate in my constituency of Nottingham, South consists of 9,000 properties; it is the second largest in England. Nearly half of those properties have been purchased by the tenants under the Government's right to buy. All of them have poured their life savings into what are now their homes. Is there any moral basis for charging those people a higher local tax merely because they have improved their homes?

Mr. Gummer: No, there is not, but it would be worse than that under Labour's proposals. My hon. Friend must remember that all the tenants who have not bought their homes would be charged the capital value of the houses of which they were tenants. So neither they nor their children could even look forward to realising that capital value. Not only would they not have the means whereby to pay the tax, but they would be hit as tenants on the capital value of the houses. It is a scandalously immoral proposal.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister accept that his last answer is such gobbledeygook that it is not even worth commenting on? When people register and find out what the poll tax means, the 21 million people who will lose and everyone else who has a sense of decency and believes in a tax based on the ability to pay—whether in Northumbria, Cumbria, Lancashire or Avon—will cast their votes on 4 May for a fair tax system that takes from people with the ability to pay and distributes grants in a sensible fashion.

Mr. Gummer: A system that takes from people according to their ability to pay cannot be fair if it is based on the value of a house. If one accepts that, how does one explain to the four out of 10 people who have less than average earnings, but live in houses which would have above—

Dr. Cunningham: Rebate.

Mr. Gummer: So it would be done by rebate. What is wrong with the rebate on the community charge? The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has again shot himself in the foot. The hon. Member refuses to give the information upon which his tax proposal could be commented, because he is afraid of doing so. He then misleads the public by refusing to point out the rebates which we have in our system.

Housing Corporation Budget

Mr. Baldry: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation to discuss the corporation's budget.

Mr. Trippier: My noble Friend the Minister for Housing, Environment and Countryside and I meet the chairman of the Housing Corporation regularly.

Mr. Baldry: Further to that answer, can my hon. Friend confirm that the Housing Corporation will enable housing associations to have ample provision in rural areas such as north Oxfordshire? What are the Government doing to encourage local authorities to take advantage of the new planning powers for development, to enable the building of more local homes for local people on low incomes?

Mr. Trippier: We are certainly providing for an expansion of housing association provision in rural areas, and north Oxfordshire will benefit from that expansion. We will soon be issuing to planning authorities a revised version of our guidance on land for housing.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister have urgent discussions with the Housing Corporation to ensure that any redevelopment of the Lower Grange estate in my constituency has adequate properties to rent at rents that those who wish to live on the estate can afford to pay?

Mr. Trippier: That was the purpose of the Housing Act 1988. It encourages housing associations—perhaps sponsored by the Housing Corporation—to make available properties at rents within the means of those on low pay.

Mr. Bowis: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman of the Housing Corporation, will he express our congratulations to the housing association movements on their contribution to housing? Will my hon. Friend also tell the chairman that it is no part of its remit to lock people out of home ownership and, therefore, will he bring forward plans to give the right to buy to housing association tenants and, in the meantime, encourage equity-sharing schemes?

Mr. Trippier: I shall certainly pass on the congratulaions of my hon. Friend to the chairman of the Housing Corporation. My hon. Friend will be aware that approximately half of the housing associations have properties where the right to buy can exist. It depends on whether they are charitable or non-charitable. If they are non-charitable, they can certainly allow people to buy their homes.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister will be aware that in areas such as mine young couples have terrible problems in finding a home that they can afford to buy or rent, especially in small rural villages. Will the Minister remind the House of the pitiful proportion of the Housing Corporation's funds that go to rural areas? What proportion does he hope will be spent in future in rural areas, as that is at least one way of alleviating the problem for couples in areas such as mine?

Mr. Trippier: It is not a pitiful proportion. The amount of money that we are making available to the Housing Corporation for the need identified by the hon. Gentleman has quadrupled. The hon. Gentleman also chooses conveniently to forget that we can have private sector finance or even mixed funding going into developments in the rural areas. [Interruption.] I am answering the question. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has the attention span of a gerbil, but I am trying to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Remarks of that kind do not help us here.

Mr. Trippier: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I am answering the question. I am addressing the precise point which the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise. It relates to the development of rural housing which is within the reach of people on low pay. That is precisely what we are doing with the new housing association initiative and the mixed funding which is now allowed under the Housing Act 1988.

Right to Buy

Mr. Gill: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give fresh consideration to removing the right to buy out the freehold from shared equity housing schemes.

Mr. Trippier: No, Sir. But we have announced proposals which would allow housing associations in certain rural areas the right of first refusal if a shared


owner wants to sell, and where a scheme is entirely privately financed, it is already possible to restrict the shared owner's right to buy the freehold.

Mr. Gill: Is my hon. Friend aware of my continuing concern about low-cost housing in rural areas? While applauding the easing of the planning constraints by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor's announcement about the tax treatment of the proceeds of the sale of land below market prices for the purpose of affordable housing, does my hon. Friend accept that it is the success of this Government's policies in encouraging home ownership which has meant that the modern generation aspires to own their own home rather than to tenant it? Any additional help which my hon. Friend can give to housing associations to provide for that market will be very much appreciated.

Mr. Trippier: I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has mentioned the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the recent Budget about tax changes which will help development in rural areas. My hon. Friend also referred to the announcement recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about the easing of planning constraints. I simply draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that although I accept that he may not have liked my substantive answer to his substantive question, the truth is that the Housing Act 1988 has made it possible to offer privately financed shared ownership schemes with non-staircasing and we are not restricting those in any way at all.

Baby Food (Contamination)

Mr. Barry Sheerman: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the contamination of baby food.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): It is difficult to imagine the twisted minds that could mount such a vicious attack on defenceless babies.
Of 17 incidents of baby food being reported as contaminatd since 7 April and 11 more reported today, a number have been recognised as examples of deliberate contamination and are the subject of police inquiries co-ordinated by the Metropolitan police. In some cases there have been blackmail demands. It would not be helpful for police investigations if I were to go into greater detail, as I am sure that the House will readily understand.
Wherever such incidents have been reported, immediate steps have been taken by the police, the manufacturers and the retailers to remove products of the kind that have been found to be contaminated from the stores concerned and to warn the public of the risk. The police are giving these investigations the highest priority. Parents and others looking after babies should in the meantime exercise the greatest care in checking both the seals of baby food containers and their contents before feeding children.

Mr. Sheerman: The Opposition share the deep concern felt by the public in general and the parents of young children and particularly of small infants about this horrible campaign which attacks the most vulnerable members of society. The Oppositon want to know whether the Government understand that this is a co-ordinated attack on the food of a vulnerable part of our society and whether the police are taking sufficiently energetic steps to bring the culprits to justice. We need to know in the House whether the reports in the press that this is a very highly sophisticated criminal activity, perhaps of a Mafia style of operation, are true, or if it is, one, off operation. Do the police know whether that is the case?
The House will wish to know whether the powers under the Food Act 1984 are sufficient to allow local authorities to step in and help the police to protect the public from contaminated food. We do not want the inquirers to be embarrassed, but there have been disturbing reports this morning that large sums of money have already been paid to such blackmailers. I hope that the Minister can reassure us both on that point and also that the police and local authorities are protecting young children from contaminated food.

Mr. Patten: First, I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of support for what the police and others are doing, and for his words of condemnation, on behalf of the official Opposition, for these foul and despicable attacks, which are of a most cowardly nature and against the vulnerable in our society. I am sure that the whole House is united in that condemnation.
Secondly, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the official Opposition that the police are, and have been, doing everything possible to investigate these serious threats to individual safety. Thirdly, I and the Government are convinced that the powers available under the Food Act

1984 are adequate to enable local authorities to assist the police and public safety by ensuring that food sold in shops is fit to eat.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that I cannot respond in detail to the specific questions that he asked about operational matters. The Government are determined to resist all attempts at consumer terrorism in this country.

Mr. Barry Field: I thank my hon. Friend for his statement. I understand that Mrs. Laura Russell, when feeding her six-month-old baby, Chantelle, in Newport on the Isle of Wight on Saturday, discovered a sliver of glass in a jar of Heinz chocolate dessert. The baby was subsequently examined at the Royal County hospital on the Isle of Wight and, mercifully, found to be unharmed. Those events took place on Saturday, but only came to light yesterday. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence over the matter. I understand that, even as I speak, similar products are still on the shelves in the same stores, and available to the public.

Mr. Patten: There is no conspiracy of silence. This afternoon I have given the House and my hon. Friend the full facts as I and the Home Office know them. May I express my horror at the unfortunate assault—for that is what it is—on the child in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am extremely glad that the child suffered no ill effects. No baby or young child has suffered serious injury from contaminated food, thanks to the vigilance of parents.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I, from my side of the argument, support the Government's attempts to resist consumer terrorism? They are entirely right to do so. I hope that the police make speedy progress in bringing the criminals to book so that they get their just desserts in the courts. If this is a long-term problem and the inquiry takes weeks, if not longer, will the Minister look again at the Food Act 1984 to find out whether the Government have powers to encourage local authorities to insist that this small range of baby foods—it is not a vast range of products—are sold with attended across-the-counter service, as opposed to unattended supermarket service? In that way, we can try to give the public some confidence that such events will not happen again.

Mr. Patten: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for our stalwart attempts to ensure that this country never gives in to consumer terrorism and the hijacking of food shops and stores up and down the land, which would have a destabilising effect. The Government are determined in all circumstances to resist that. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion about the workings of the Food Act. We are convinced that the Act contains adequate powers for local authorities, environmental health officers and others to investigate any suggestion of food being unfit. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's interesting suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. James Hill: Does not my hon. Friend agree that these are crimes of magnitude and should not be trivialised in any way? Will he confirm that, if a baby were to die during this present epidemic of pollution of cans and jars, the police would treat such an event as murder, and that the provisions of the courts would be correspondingly increased?
May I make two useful suggestions? First, food of this type should be displayed in a prominent part of supermarkets under the eyes and ears of those who work at the cash registers and in the reception areas. That will mean that people cannot sneak behind the display counters and do their work.
Secondly, warning notices should immediately be placed in all supermarkets that deal with these types of food telling people to be vigilant and saying that those tampering with products should be reported to the management as soon as they are spotted. Such signs would increase the vigilance of customers and staff in all these supermarkets.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is right to say that the charges that could be laid by the police—it would be their decision—could range from assault up to attempted murder, punishable by life imprisonment. The most severe penalties are available to the courts, should such charges he laid. I am sure that the food manufacturing industry, which has an excellent record of health, safety and hygiene in manufacturing baby foods in this country over many years, will have listened carefully to all the advice given to it.
There is no evidence of any of these foodstuffs being contaminated during the manufacturing process—hence, what my hon. Friend has said is right. It is up to retailers and others to exercise maximum vigilance in the stores where these foodstuffs are sold. I am sure that they will listen as carefully to my hon. Friend as I did when he gave excellent advice on the radio this morning.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Although I appreciate that it may be difficult to divulge a great deal of information at this stage, since different brands of food and different types of containers have been found to be affected in different parts of the country, will the Minister assure us that he will consider providing the maximum possible information in the circumstances to consumers, who are very worried about the problem?

Mr. Patten: We will certainly make available to consumers all the information that we have. I have given all the facts this afternoon. A range of products made by two manufacturers have been affected.

Mr. David Martin: I welcome very much what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that all sane people will agree that we must never give way to such blackmailing campaigns.
My constituent, Mrs. Murphy, is quite convinced that the seal on the pineapple dessert that she bought had not been tampered with. We need to allay the fears of those who believe that the production process, as well as the opportunities that arise for contamination on the shelves, should be thoroughly investigated. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that, too.

Mr. Patten: I thank my hon. Friend for the first part of his remarks, and I pass on my sorrow, through him, to his constituent for her experience. I am extremely glad that the child is safe and well.
I do not want to go into details of police investigations, but I can tell my hon. Friend that, on the information given to me as late as this afternoon, the police have no evidence of contamination during the manufacturing process, and considerable evidence of contamination at a later stage.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome the Minister's statement and assure him of our support for his stand against consumer terrorism in Northern Ireland, where shops have been affected.
Can the Minister shed any light on the allegations that considerable sums have already been paid out for blackmail? Have funds been supplied through insurance companies such as Risk Control to allow firms to deal with such matters? Surely that, in itself, will encourage such campaigns?

Mr. Patten: I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his long experience in his constituency and in the Province, with its troubled recent past, will appreciate that it is sometimes less than helpful not only to give information about police investigations, but even to speculate about them. I hope that he will foregive me if I do not answer his question more fully than that on this occasion.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, and I thank the whole House for its determination to ensure that the country never gives in to consumer terrorism.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: It is right that my hon. Friend should play no part in spreading alarmist fears, but, with respect, does he agree that his statement should have gone a great deal further in showing the risks to parents and consumers? In particular, as most of the incidents appear to have taken place in the south-east and, to a lesser extent, in the midlands, is this a regional problem? Is it isolated to certain types of food? What should people be looking out for in jars and cans and what measures can they take—for example sieving their contents—to prevent any risk to their children?

Mr. Patten: I welcome my hon. Friend's question and the opportunity that it gives to provide the information that he thinks would be helpful. First, the incidents are far from restricted to the south-east. They have occurred in the north-west, Cheshire and possibly Lancashire. Secondly, I can give a complete list of the forms of contamination which my lion. Friend might find of interest, as would parents. Contamination has included the insertion of glass splinters, pins, broken razor blades and, on one occasion, caustic soda.
The advice that I gave the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) is good advice: parents should take the greatest possible care to check the seals of containers. Thereafter, they should take the greatest possible care to check the foodstuff before it is served to their child or children, and that includes looking at and smelling the substance to make sure that it is pure.

Mr. Roger Stott: Is the Minister aware that I agree with everything that he has said about this appalling state of affairs, and that I am grateful for what he said earlier—that there is no evidence of the source of the contamination being the factory but that contamination takes place beyond that, either in the shop, in transit, or wherever? I am sure that what he has said this afternoon will be welcomed by many thousands of my constituents who work in Heinz's factory in Wigan.

Mr. Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Firms such as Heinz and Cow and Gate have an excellent record, recognised worldwide, in food hygiene and safety. I can only repeat that the police have no evidence of contamination during the production process.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Is it not hard for the House to comprehend that sick people in our society, for the sake of a cause, would risk subjecting innocent babies to lethal injury? Thank God that there has been no real tragedy to date. Will the Government monitor the situation carefully and reassure those anxious mothers who now fear buying any baby foods that every possible action will be taken on their behalf?

Mr. Patten: I can assure my hon. Friend that—most importantly of all—the police, the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present—and the Department of Health are doing everything possible to ensure that all avenues are included.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question. I shall call one more hon. Member.

Mr. Max Madden: Is the Minister entirely satisfied that the seals to which he referred during the exchanges are in all cases adequate? It would seem that we need urgently to consider the sealing of such products so that customers can be entirely confident that the products have not been tampered with.

Mr. Patten: I cannot give a straight answer to that question because I have not examined all the seals, nor do I, alas, have exact evidence of the different sorts of seals used. I do know that the police are convinced that, under most circumstances, the seals woud have had to be broken to admit the contaminated objects, liquid or substance. In the meantime, it is important for parents and those who care for children to be as vigilant as possible.

Agriculture Council (Price Fixing)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the outcome of the Agriculture Council dealing with this year's price review.
Last week's Council, at which I represented the United Kingdom, was devoted almost entirely to the Commission's proposals for agricultural prices and related measures for 1989–90. After a whole week of negotiations, agreement was finally reached on a compromise package in the early hours of the morning of Saturday 22 April.
The package represents a very satisfactory outcome for the United Kingdom. It meets our key objectives of respecting the February 1988 European Council conclusions, in particular not weakening the stabiliser mechanisms; and of ensuring a fair deal for United Kingdom farmers which improves their competitive position. The Commission confirmed, at the completion of the negotiations, that the 1989 budget for CAP guaranteed expenditure would be respected and that expenditure in 1990 would be well within the financial guidelines.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, I obtained a substantial devaluation of the green rate at which support prices in ecu are converted into sterling. It will reduce United Kingdom monetary gaps generally by one half, and completely remove the monetary gap, and therefore the monetary compensatory amount, for beef. At my insistence, the discriminatory element of the Commission's original proposal, which envisaged dismantling only one third of the gap, was completely removed. Overall, this has a significantly favourable effect on MCAs from the United Kingdom point of view.
The devaluations will take place at the beginning of 1989–90 marketing years and will improve our farmers' competitive position relative to those in other member states. In themselves, they should increase United Kingdom producer incomes by about £155 million in a full year, when all the effects have worked through.
The changes to green rates for the United Kingdom and other member states represent a further significant step toward the complete dismantling of monetary gaps, and hence MCAs, by 1992—certainly by the end of 1992—for which I have been consistently pressing.
Turning to other elements of the package, a major breakthrough was achieved on the levels of milk co-responsibility levy. From the 1989–90 marketing year, no co-responsibility levy will be charged on milk produced in the less-favoured areas, and the levy on milk produced outside those areas will be reduced by 0·5 per cent., to rates of I per cent. for producers of up to 60,000 kg per year, and 1·5 per cent. for other producers. Most important, it was agreed that this is the first step towards complete elimination of the levy, and the Commission undertook to propose a further step for 1990–91.
I have always opposed co-responsibility levies as a mechanism for CAP reform, and have constantly pressed for their reduction and subsequent elimination, so this development is greatly to be welcomed. The cost of the changes will be met by a 2 per cent. cut in the intervention price for butter and by management measures. Moreover, following my pressure, it has been agreed that the


Commission will examine the administration of the co-responsibility levy for cereals and will submit any appropriate proposals.
The Commission will also study the functioning of the milk quota system, and I will be pressing for that to include the question of greater flexibility in the transfer of quotas.
Community prices for sugar will be reduced by 2 per cent. this year. This is considerably less than the Commission's proposal for a 5 per cent. cut, and reflects the concerns expressed by member states, including the United Kingdom, about the effect both on Community producers and on the suppliers of cane sugar from the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. As a condition of my agreement, I secured a comitment to safeguard the position of Community refiners of cane sugar.
In addition, the support prices for field beans and for a number of Mediterranean products will be reduced, and the stabiliser mechanism extended to cauliflowers and apples. Basic support prices for other products will remain unchanged in ecu terms, but the prices actually applied are liable to be cut automatically, under the stabiliser arrangements, if output exceeds a given level. In addition, there will be a reduction in the period of intervention for cereals and oilseeds, and lower monthly price increases for those commodities and for protein crops.
The existing definition of double-low rapeseed—sometimes called double-zero rapeseed—has been extended to 1990–91. I pressed for this delay, which is of importance to our growers, as commercially viable varieties able reliably to meet a lower definition in United Kingdom conditions are not yet available.
During the Council I took a further opportunity to raise yet again the importance of taking early and effective action to combat fraud in the CAP.
The settlement keeps within the budgetary limits, extends the stabiliser mechanisms, further improves the competitive position of United Kingdom farmers, and has only a very small effect indeed on the retail price index. Overall, therefore, it is a good settlement for United Kingdom interests.

Dr. David Clark: I welcome the Minister's success in obtaining abolition of the co-responsibility levies in certain areas and reductions of those on the MCAs. Equally, I welcome the review of the milk quota. I urge the Minister to try to ensure that this is done as speedily as possible, because we really must avoid too much uncertainty creeping into the dairy sector.
The Minister emphasised that the recent EC price proposals kept within the budget requirements laid down at the February 1988 summit. I cannot understand why the Minister takes credit for that. My understanding of the Prime Minister's statement to the House on 15 February 1988 is that those restrictions were legally binding, so the Minister and his colleagues had no option but to keep within the relevant financial disciplines. Will the Minister confirm that that legally binding requirement stands?
To what extent does the Minister believe that we managed to remain within the financial guidelines because of the greenhouse effect and of the drought in the United States, as opposed to careful management by the Commission? To us, that is a key point. About two thirds of total Community spending has been on agriculture. At last year's Brussels summit, it was agreed that that proportion would be reduced. Will the Minister say by

how much the review has reduced the amount of spending on agriculture as a percentage of European funding as a whole?
The Minister stated that, as a result of the review, prices for farmers will increase by more than £115 million. Bearing in mind the fact that Britain already faces high inflation and that food prices are creeping up, will the Minister say by how much he estimates that the agreement will increase prices in the shops? That matter concerns a great many people.
The Minister referred quite rightly to fraud. As he and I both know, between 10 and 20 per cent. of the CAP budget is lost through fraud. The Minister has been strong on rhetoric but weak on support. Those are not my own words but the sentiments expressed by Lord Cockfield when speaking in another place—[Laughter.] Right hon. and hon. Members may laugh, but Lord Cockfield was the Commissioner dealing with the matter, and I suggest that he knows considerably more about it than right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
What action is the Minister taking to put his own house in order? He will recall that it is more than three months since the director of the serious fraud office, John Wood, revealed that he was close to completing inquiries into two significant cases of agricultural fraud in Britain involving EC moneys. Will the Minister confirm that those cases exist in reality and say when definite action may be expected?
Intertwined with the EEC price review have been general discussions on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has hurried back from an important conference in the United States where he discussed that matter. Will the Minister explain how the price review will aid our discussions in GATT? If trade protection is cut and the resulting high food prices, consumer taxes and Third world destabilisation are all to be tackled, we must ensure that the latest review is helpful to that process.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments and for his welcome to many parts of the package.
The milk quota review really concerns the functioning of the milk quota and does not apply to the future of the milk quota system after 1992. 1, like the hon. Gentleman and all dairy farmers, am anxious that that matter should be discussed in the Council at an early stage, so that our farmers will know the way ahead in the 1990s. I have pressed for that many times, but it was not right to raise that matter in these price negotiations. The review will be about the functioning of the system. I hope, as I made clear, that we shall secure changes in transferability and greater flexibility. There will be an early report, because the Commission has undertaken to report on that aspect by the end of July this year.
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that we have to operate under legally binding limits, which certainly affect the climate in which the discussions take place. However, it is right that we should ask the Commission each year, at the end of our negotiations, to make it clear that we have fully met those legally binding limits. If there is any risk of over-running them, we would need to have a joint meeting with ECOFIN. As I have said, clearly we are well within the limits.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the drought in North America has had some impact on Community


expenditure this year. It is also important to recognise that the stabilisers are having their effect, too, and that, without any question, the impact is already coming through. Indeed, as a result of those negotiations we are well below the legally binding guidelines for both this coming year and the year after. That is a very good outcome.
The hon. Gentleman asked by what percentage the proportion of total Community spending devoted to agriculture had been reduced. We are actually still working out the precise figures, and pehaps I can let him have that information shortly. He also asked about the impact on consumers, and I am pleased to tell him that the outcome of these negotiations, which is favourable to our farmers, has virtually nil impact on the retail price index—at most, one twentieth of 1 per cent.
I reject entirely the view that I have been weak on support in asking for actions on fraud. I have raised this matter very regularly in the Council since I became Minister, orginally with little support from other Ministers. I am pleased to say that that support is growing almost by the month. On this occasion, four Ministers specifically spoke strongly in favour of the actions I was recommending. There are three sorts. First, I asked the Commission to look into the allegations made in the European Parliament recently about butter expenditure, and to report. Secondly, I asked for an action programme on the Court of Auditors' report and recommendations on intervention and various aspects of the existing system. I was given a very good timetable of proposals due to come in front of our Council soon from the Agriculture Commissioner. I am satisfied that he treats this matter with as much seriousness as I do.
Thirdly, I floated the suggestion that in future, when we are looking at major changes to any proposal or at any new proposal, in addition to having a report on the financial consequences, we should have from the Commission a report on how any new proposal would be controlled, administered and made fraud-proof. I hope that that suggestion will increasingly get support. To me, for the future, that is one of the major contributions the Agriculture Council can make in reducing fraud.
Finally, on GATT, it was timely that I was in the United States in the last two days, both because it came immediately after the outcome of the Geneva discussions on what is effectively the mid-term review of the Uruguay round of GATT, and also because it came immediately after the completion of the price negotiations. I was able to tell my American counterpart that, through the price review, we have fully met the commitments that we have undertaken in the Geneva round of discussions. The stabilisers have been honoured. In fact, we have taken the process of reform further in some directions, and the outcome is totally consistent with our position in GATT. For that reason it was welcomed in the United States. Certainly the atmosphere this year is very different from what it was last year. I hope that we will now be able to work constructively together on the latest stages of the GATT Uruguay round.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will be aware that we have a ten-minute rule Bill after this statement and a very long list of amendments to get through before Third

Reading of the Social Security Bill. I ask for brief questions and for hon. Members not to repeat questions that may have been asked before.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I assure my right hon. Friend that what he has achieved, particularly in relation to MCAs and the milk co-responsibility levy, will be enormously welcomed by the agricultural community, some sections of which are extremely hard pressed at present. However, can he give some indication of the timetable he expects—I know it is difficult to predict in Common Market negotiations—in relation to the review of milk quotas and also for the final removal of the co-responsibility levy?

Mr. MacGregor: This year we have done well with the timetable, because we have reached decisions rather earlier than usual. We will be getting a review of the functioning of the milk quota system by the end of July. I will certainly be pressing for early action to follow up proposals that I hope will be made. We have a commitment to make further progress next year on the co-responsibility levy on milk, and I assure my right hon. Friend that I share his view. One of my main objectives next year will be to make much further progress on this levy; I should like it removed altogether.
Regarding my right hon. Friend's point on MCAs, I think it is worth giving relevant figures to the House, because they demonstrate the substantial progress made in removing the unfair competition elements that existed in the last two years through the MCA system for our farmers.
Let us compare the figures for February 1987 with today's figures. In crops, the negative MCAs have dropped from minus 32·8 to minus 2·6. In milk they have dropped from minus 31 to minus 1·8. In eggs and poultry they have dropped from minus 28·3 to nil. In pigmeat they have dropped from minus 27·2 to nil. In beef they have dropped from minus 24·5 to nil. We have taken a major step forward in ensuring fair competition for our farmers.

Mr. Geraint Howells: May I thank the Minister for looking after the interests of dairy and beef farmers? Can he give an assurance that, in the next round of negotiations, he will look after the interests of sheep farmers?
Having said that, I am afraid that the majority of those involved in agriculture will not consider this a very good settlement. The Minister mentioned a figure of £155 million. I am sure that he is aware that the industry now pays £800 million in basic interest rates and borrows £6,450 million, the highest amount ever. Will he give an assurance that he will do all that he can to help agriculture in its fight to put an end to the disastrous effects of high interest rates? Finally, will he tell us whether the £155 million that he mentioned is net or gross profit?

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman will realise, the price negotiations were about the price negotiations and not about anything else.
I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern about sheepmeat. The review of the sheepmeat regime is still ahead of us: I have often told the House that I expect this to be a long and difficult negotiation, and I now believe that it will be even longer than I thought. Meanwhile, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that, as a result of decisions that we made last week, there will


be an improvement in the sheepmeat sector of 4·3 points in the 1989–90 marketing year as a result of the green rate changes. That is a significant improvement, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that this negotiation has helped in that respect.
Finally, let me answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the figures. The £155 million is net for a full year, after account has been taken of the effect on feed. We calculate, however, that dairy producers' incomes will increase by another £20 million as a result of the changes in the milk co-responsibility levy.

Mr. David Curry: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a co-responsibility levy is wholly incompatible with a quota system? Will he say whether all producers will pay only 1 per cent. up to the first 60,000 kg of production, or whether some will pay 1·5 per cent? Will he also pay some attention to not allowing the principle of differentiation between the small and the larger farmer to become too widespread?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall go further than my hon. Friend and say that I do not consider the co-responsibility levy system appropriate in the context of CAP reform as a whole. I think that we should be tackling it in other ways, and I am therefore eager to find any way of obtaining support for reducing and eliminating the system. We made big progress this year: for the first time, other Ministers are coming in behind the argument that I have been pushing ever since I became a member of the Council.
The first 60,000 kg in the milk co-responsibility levy is for small producers with a quota of less than that amount. Those with a quota above that will pay the full 1·5 per cent. I thought that quite hard last week; it seemed to me wrong to give preferential treatment to the small producers, of whom we tend not to have very many. It also seems wrong—I think that this is what my hon. Friend had in mind —as a general approach to CAP reform. I nearly obtained majority support but not quite, and I thought it better to settle for this now—because it was the first major step in dealing with the co-responsibility levy—knowing that we would come back to it next year.
Hon. Members representing constituencies where dairy farmers are in the less-favoured areas will find it worth noting that the LFA change—a nil co-responsibility levy—will affect some 25 per cent. of our dairy producers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister referred to the north American drought and its effect on Community prices. Does he accept that perhaps that drought has a good deal to do with the destruction of rain forests in central America and Amazonia—that is a climatologist's opinion and not mine? Will he put on the agenda of the next Council meeting the import from unsustainable sources of woods such as mahogany on which I have received frankly helpful answers from the Parliamentary Secretary? Does the Minister recognise that it is a European matter and not simply a British one?

Mr. MacGregor: As it happens, I have come to the House straight from the global climatology seminar in another place. I certainly take a very great interest in these matters and I hope that the Council will be able to discuss them. We have been discussing them informally, but I hope that we will be able to discuss formally in the Council the implications for Community agriculture and forestry, among other matters. The hon. Gentleman may know that

we are in the final stages of agreeing a Community forestry programme which will also be helpful. The weight of evidence and scientific opinion about the north American drought this year is that it is not yet linked to the longer-term effects. Nevertheless, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the global climatology issues will very much affect agriculture, and need to be discussed.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: While the Minister has made the farmers very happy, does he agree that it is an abuse of the EEC pricing system to consider proposals for 36 separate green currency changes at a net cost to the Community of less than nothing, which will mean that the entire cost of the extra price will go to the consumer and less than nothing, according to the figures, to the EEC? Is it not simply an accountancy fiddle to help keep the Community's expenditure within the spending limits? Does he have any proposals to bring down the surplus production of food, which is costing taxpayers throughout Europe more than £200 million a week to dump and destroy?

Mr. MacGregor: I know that my hon. Friend felt that the February 1988 reforms would not bite and did not have much impact, but he should recognise the progress that has already been made. One cannot change everything overnight, and it is important that we carry through internationally CAP agricultural reforms in dealing with subsidies and surpluses. I hope that my hon. Friend will notice the progress that has already been made. It is not an accountancy fiddle. The figures are quite clear; they show that, as a result of last week's negotiations, on current forecasts we will be £700 million below the ceiling in 1988 and 1·9 billion ecu below it in 1989. Those are real figures and they demonstrate the real progress that has been made. At the same time, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the green currency changes were absolutely right, because United Kingdom farmers were being disadvantaged. That is why that was one of my prime objectives in the negotiations.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister says that he cannot deal with the problem overnight, but the Government have been at it for 10 years. The Prime Minister sticks up an Agriculture Minister about once every two years and then she sacks him. We have an annual farce when the Minister tells us he has got a good deal. How much of the money will end up in farm workers' pockets? How much will end up in the pockets of the godfathers? No doubt one of these years the Minister will be telling us that they have given the Mafia a seat at the table.

Mr. MacGregor: Not for the first time, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening.

Mr. Skinner: I have.

Mr. MacGregor: In the past year, we have made considerable savings, for which I have given the figures. We have, quite rightly, improved farm incomes as a result of the green currency changes for United Kingdom farmers. That will work throughout the farming system and be of benefit to it. It has an absolutely negligible effect on consumers. The hon. Gentleman referred to other elements—

Mr. Skinner: Farm workers.

Mr. MacGregor: I have already dealt with that in saying that the measures will work through the farming system.
One of the other issues that I raised in the Council is fraud. I believe that we are now getting down to detailed proposals which will enable us to take more and more action on that front. The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree with him on that, and I hope that he will allow that we are making considerable progress.

Mr. Michael Lord: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the package and on the great effort he has made on the monetary compensatory amounts. He needs no reminding from me that few, if any, cereal farmers in East Anglia made any profits last year. Does he agree that it is important that probably the best cereal farmers in the world are allowed to make a living, not only for their own sakes, but for the sake of the people they employ, who have just been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? The workers' livelihoods depend on sound agriculture, just as much as those of the farmers, and the many rural industries that depend on cereal farmers for their incomes.

Mr. MacGregor: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. We are neighbours and share the same problems. My hon. Friend will acknowledge that, in our part of the world, we have had bad harvests in the past two years, which have had a considerable impact on the incomes of cereal farmers. We must hope that that does not happen a third time. There is not much doubt that I could not have achieved more this year in the price negotiations for cereal farmers. Their relative position has changed considerably.
Sugar is the other major concern that my hon. Friend probably has in mind. It is important to take into account all the factors involved, including, of course, the green pound changes; that means that returns to United Kingdom growers and beet processors will rise by about 2 per cent. after the effect on levies and the devaluation of the green pound are taken into account—even after the price reduction.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: While welcoming the green pound devaluation, I regret that it has taken 10 years to reach even this stage, and that the differentials have not yet been eliminated. How will the Minister's package measure up to the needs of an industry facing rising costs, not the least of which is the 5 per cent. interest rise of last year? I estimate that it will cost the industry at least twice as much as any improvements in this package. Are we, yet again, facing the problem of too little, too late for the industry?

Mr. MacGregor: It is not 10 years, but two years. I gave the hon. Gentleman the figures for two years ago. He will see that the monetary compensatory amounts are negligible in two sectors and that in three other sectors there is a nil MCA. That is a considerable improvement. I hope that the £155 million improvement in farm incomes negotiated as a result of this deal will be helpful to farmers. It is important to bear in mind also that we are talking about support prices. The returns to farmers could be higher than that, depending on the market. We have been discussing only the support prices themselves.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this is the news that our dairy and livestock farmers have deserved for a long time,

especially the news on the MCAs and the co-responsibility levy? When it comes to the review of quotas and their transfer, will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the difficulties of young farmers and new entrants to the industry?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In his second question he raises one of the major difficulties of any quota system. I have made it clear to our farming industry that, if there is a general consensus about one or two of the possibilities that might help to deal with that —the siphoning of milk quotas is one of the most obvious —I should be happy to consider them. There is no consensus at present, and it is difficult to see a way of helping some of the new entrants into dairy farming. That is, unfortunately, one of the consequences of a quota system.

Mr. Bob Cryer: While the Minister says smugly that he gest a fair deal for farmers—although he admits that there will be a price rise for the ordinary consumer—is he doing any work in the Cabinet to try to unfreeze child benefit, which was debated earlier in the week? Many consumers will be aware of the priorities he has exhibited today. Does he accept that more than £1,000 million will be spent on propping up the Common Market this year and next year—and no doubt for many years after?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether more or less than 70 per cent. of total EC income will go on the CAP, or has he not yet made that calculation? Does he accept that it is lame to come to the House after 10 years of Tory Government and discover that over £6,500 million is being cheated out of CAP funds by fraud? When is he going to do something about it and catch the crooks?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman bandies about figures without knowing what he is talking about. By definition, one cannot know the precise figures on fraud, but I am almost certain that the figures that he has quoted are way, way above what the figures are likely to be. Nevertheless, any loss of taxpayers' money through fraud is highly reprehensible; that is why I have taken the fraud issue so seriously. I have already made it clear that the effect of the review on consumers is one twentieth of 1 per cent. and it will have a negligible effect on improving the prospects of our farmers. The proportion of Community expenditure which is spent on CAP is less than 70 per cent.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can I thank my right hon. Friend for his vigorous and effective negotiating in the interest of the whole of the United Kingdom, not just one section of it? On specifics, is it not the case that the cost of the reduction in the co-responsibility levy has been met by the reduction in cost of storing surplus butter? In view of the dramatic increase in costs, including interest costs, why is it therefore necessary to reduce by 2 per cent. the support price—the intervention price—for butter?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has just said. The reason for the 2 per cent. reduction in the intervention price is that it was important that that decision was budget-neutral, and the reason for that is that, despite all the reforms that we have carried through, the dairy sector is, at the moment, still the most expensive sector in the Community and as it is still expensive, it is necessary to have a eye to costs. Nevertheless, I expect that now that we have reduced the


butter mountains and the skimmed milk powder mountains, our expenditure on that will work its way through the system and the dairy sector will then become less expensive than it is now.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Minister has already said that he expects that negotiations on the sheepmeat regime will be long and difficult, but will he assure the House that he is aware of the importance of the timing of any such changes and of the disruption and the dislocation that could be caused to the marketing year both from the uncertainty about when such changes will be introduced and about what would happen if they were introduced at the wrong time in the marketing year?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, Sir.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I will do my best to call the hon. Members who have been rising, but it will depend on brief questions.

Sir Hector Monro: May I join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend on his outstanding success over the co-responsibility levy and the green pound? Bearing in mind the uncertainty in the livestock industry, especially in hill areas, will he do everything possible this summer to ensure that an increase in the suckler cow subsidy is as high as possible?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks on the price negotiations. I am aware of the feelings that he and others like him have about the suckler cow premium and I shall certainly make an announcement about that before 15 June, which is the deadline by which that announcement is required.

Mr. Paul Marland: This is an excellent package, and I should like to add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and to reassure his doubters that the money will find its way right through the system, be it to the farm workers or to the bank managers. I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the co-responsibility levy on dairy produce but having negated that, will he turn his attention to the cereals co-responsibility levy which has encouraged cereals farmers to produce more rather than less, and which is the most worthless tax that there has ever been?

Mr. MacGregor: I totally share my hon. Friend's views about the cereals co-responsibility levy. I have been repeating such remarks ad nauseam in the Council since we have had the co-responsibility levy. I did it again this year, and we achieved one improvement, in that the Commission is now committed to looking at the administration of the cereals co-responsibility levy. I assure my hon. Friend that I intend to build on that.
It was clear this year that, for the first time, we were getting growing support for our attacks on the milk co-responsibility levy. It seemed right to build on that and to secure results on that this year, not least because it means that the Council has now committed itself to phasing out one of the co-responsibility levies. The Council has now begun to recognise the principal arguments against the principle of the co-responsibility levy.

Mr. Ralph Howell: My right hon. Friend will agree that producers, particularly the hard-pressed cereals producers, will want to know what

effect this will have on prices for the coming year. Can he give a forecast of what he expects the price increase will be? While I am glad to hear him restating his opposition to the co-responsibility levy, may I ask him to explain how that squares with his support for stabilising penalties?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will know that it is not possible at this stage to predict what market prices will be this year because, being market prices, they will depend on a whole range of market factors. But the fact that MCAs now on cereals in this country are minus 2·6 per cent., compared with minus 32 per cent. only two years ago, is a major contribution that this price review has made, in addition to the improvement in crop support prices as a result of the green rate changes.
As for his question about stabilisers, my hon. Friend and I have had battles on that issue in the past. It is essential for the future stability of our cereal farmers that we get on top of the surpluses and ensure that the cereals sector does not absorb ever-rising amounts of taxpayers' expenditure. That is the point of the stabiliser. I believe that the mechanism of the stabiliser on support prices was the right way to tackle it and that it should not have been encumbered by a co-responsibility levy as well. That is why I am endeavouring to get rid of that.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: rose—

Mr. David Harris: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harris.

Mr. Banks: Fair do's.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that I would call hon. Members who had been rising, not those who have suddenly decided to put a question.

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Scottish Question Time, when Scottish Members complained about English Tory Members being called—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Gentleman rising before I said that I would call hon. Members who had previously been rising?

Mr. Hood: I was putting a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Was the hon. Gentleman rising previously? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. Was the hon. Gentleman rising previously?

Mr. Hood: No, I was not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will, as I said, call those who were rising.

Mr. Hood: I agree that I was not rising, Mr. Speaker, but—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris: Will my right hon. Friend be not deflected from the excellent work that he is now doing by the unholy alliance in this House represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Will he carry on in the reforming way in which he has approached these matters? Will he accept congratulations, given the squeeze on farm incomes, for the extra £155 million that our


farmers will gain from this settlement, and in particular for the pending abolition of the co-responsibility levy on milk, which will mean a tremendous amount to milk producers in the south-west of England?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right about the important step that has been taken in the Council for many south-west of England dairy farmers. For many of them in the less-favoured areas there will be no co-responsibility levy on milk from now on. That is an important step forward and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments—[Interruption.] I am sure that the whole of agriculture will have noticed the frivolity with which Opposition Members treat these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—the frivolity on the Opposition Back Benches, compared with the serious approach and questions that have been asked by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Hood: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your protection. Is it right for the Minister, from the Dispatch Box, to accuse me of frivolity when I am only exercising my democratic right to ask him a question?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was here earlier and heard what I said.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: What is the anticipated impact of green pound devaluation on the competitive basis of United Kingdom producers in relation to EC producers, and why has the marketing year been changed?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to say that, as a result of action even earlier than these price negotiations, we managed to secure a nil MCA in the pigmeat sector, so that it is now in a fair and competitive situation. The change in the marketing year is a sensible move designed to bring it into line with the starting date of the marketing year for the cereals sector, given that cereals play a prominent part in the costs of the pigmeat sector in terms of feed costs and so on.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of farmers in my area for his sterling work on the green pound in particular and on the co-responsibility levy? Will he continue to bear in mind the problems of young milk producers such as my constituent, Mr. Derek Lomax?

Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I recognise the problems and discuss them often with the farming community. There is a general recognition in the farming community of the problem and an acceptance that this is one of the inevitable penalties of a quota system. On the other hand, there are divided views on how it should be tackled. At every meeting that I have been to, when I have tried to see if there was a majority view, it was difficult to find one. Siphoning offers the best prospect but, as my hon. Friend will know, many in the farming community are not in favour of that.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I too should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his considerable achievements in pushing the British argument in Europe. May I now exhort my right hon. Friend to use his considerable powers of persuasion to influence his colleagues in Europe to phase out intervention, which is

carried on at horrific cost, which is wide open to abuse and which is of doubtful benefit to producers or the customers they serve? Undoubtedly, the money could be used to much better effect if it was channelled more directly to farmers.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend that we should try to bring intervention back to its original objective as an ultimate safety net and not as an alternative market outlet. We are making progress, because two modest further steps towards that end were taken this year, in relation to the intervention period and the monthly increments.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend's achievements will be particularly appreciated by Pembrokeshire beef and dairy farmers, whose income has been depressed in recent years. Will my right hon. Friend do one further thing for them? Will he continue to press for an increase in the 90-steer headage limit, which would be greatly appreciated?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, we had a major battle on that last year, culminating in the Agriculture Council in January. I managed to negotiate the steer headage limit up from the original proposal, which was well below the limit of 90 that we eventually achieved. I will obviously come back to the charge on this, but it is one area where I am in a minority, not quite of one but nearly, so it will be a major battle to get any improvement.

Mr. Charles Wardle: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his tenacity at the negotiating table? When he begins the important review of the milk quota system, will he put the transferability of quotas high on the agenda? Bearing in mind the effects of last year's drought on world prices, has not enough been saved in export subsidies to abolish the irrelevant milk co-responsibility levy altogether in 1991?

Mr. MacGregor: I am working to get the milk co-responsibility levy abolished. Ideally, I should like to see that happen next year; certainly I hope that we shall make progress on it next year. On transferability, I have been arguing for some time that we need greater flexibility. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have already told the Commission that I hope that it will come forward with proposals on that in the study to which it is now committed.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Kenneth Hind: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Bennett.

Mr. Tony Banks: He has been called already.

Mr. Hind: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the package that he has negotiated, which will be welcomed very much by west Lancashire farmers. In the light of the fact that the British farmer will have a greater competitive edge than in the past, will my right hon. Friend be very vigilant in looking for hidden subsidies that are developed by foreign farmers and producers, particularly as we have seen in relation to gas for the Dutch tomato industry? It appears that the Dutch potato processing industry is benefiting in the same way.

Mr. MacGregor: We are always vigilant in pursuing any issues where it looks as though there are unfair state aids. I have to put the emphasis on "unfair" because some aids are permitted within the system and we make use of them ourselves. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are vigilant where there is evidence of unfair aid. We take that up with the Commission because the prime responsibility for dealing with it lies with the Commission.

Mr. Richard Holt: I offer my congratulations and those of dairy farmers in my constituency to my right hon. Friend. In sorting out the insecurity of the future, will my right hon. Friend's Department hurry up in making a decision about green-top milk? Many of the dairy farmers in my constituency who are involved in this area—who wonder why people are allowed to buy cigarettes and possibly catch cancer—will have nothing to do in future if green-top milk is not available.

Mr. MacGregor: Without going into the issues today, I can tell my hon. Friend that we have been receiving responses to our consultation document. We shall be assessing those responses carefully and in due course we shall make a statement about our position.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall take one question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to represent the consumer, in the place of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

Mr. Tony Banks: You are a toff, Mr. Speaker.
I say to the Secretary of State that what the farmers of Newham want to know is, how many of his right hon. and hon. Friends sitting behind him have personally benefited from what he has been able to negotiate? Does he not think that in future it would be far better if Conservative Members declared an interest before they asked a question?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the farmers of Newham would tell the hon. Gentleman that I am the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and not the Secretary of State.

Mr. Banks: Do not worry: you will make it.

Mr. MacGregor: That indicates how deeply involved the hon. Gentleman is in these matters.
I am certain that the farmers of Newham would applaud the fact that we have done a greal deal this year to put the United Kingdom farmer on a completely competitive basis. I should have thought that the whole House and the whole country would welcome that.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise a point of Table Office practice rather than "Erskine May"? A malicious habit has grown up among Ministers—one in particular—of claiming that she or he has answered questions when, in fact, no answer has been given. Yesterday, I had oral Question 92, which, alas, was not reached. It asked the Prime Minister whether Sir Leon Brittan cleared with No. 10 Downing street—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question was not reached. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask it now.

Mr. Dalyell: It is not what you might expect, Mr. Speaker; it is rather different. The Prime Minister claimed that she had answered many times on this subject, but she had not. She could not have.

Mr. Speaker: What is the point of order for me in that? I am not accountable for the answers that are given to questions.

Mr. Dalyell: The point of order concerns a matter of Table Office practice and why the Table Office refuses questions that ask Ministers for specific references as to where they have answered questions that they claim to have answered. It is a matter for the Table Office. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, cannot make decisions now, but would you reflect on the matter for 24 hours and ask the Table Office and colleagues what should be done about references which have been properly asked for by parliamentary Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I will reflect.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before I give my point of order, may I thank you for calling me a second time on the statement? Obviously, my first question was not very memorable.
Could you confirm that hon. Members who wish to ask questions about statements, such as the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), should be present to hear the statement?

Mr. Speaker: Let us not start a debate, but listen to what I say about the matter from the Chair.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you ensure that the record of Hansard shows that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food referred to Opposition Back-Bench questions as frivolous? As one of them was a question from me about the serious fraud and cheating that is going on in the CAP, it is important that people outside should know that the Minister does not take a serious attitude towards that important subject.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You probably know that, over a period, a group of us on the Opposition Back Benches have complained in the proper quarter about the fact that we cannot hear properly because the acoustics of the chamber is not good. Very understandably, it was put to us that little could be done about it. However, the whole thing is made worse when Ministers, especially junior Ministers, pirouette—they talk not to the House, but turn round. Today was a prize example. It is foolish of them to behave in that way. Can we get an instruction to Ministers, especially junior Ministers, not to pretend that they are playing, for example, David Lloyd George?

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of the problem with the acoustics. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn my attention to something which I already know about. The microphones have recently been replaced. Ministers should speak into them, and the whole House would then hear.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for


Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) represents a distinguished agricultural constituency and has had a horse named after him, unlike Conservative Members. He was present during the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Even if my hon. Friend did not rise to speak, the hon. Member for Pembroke should withdraw his slur on him.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman was present and I am sorry that I could not call him. We have a very busy day ahead of us.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: For the benefit of Conservative Members, I have a constituency covering 1,000 square miles with a major agricultural—[Interruption.] I know more about the problems of farmers.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman had been rising, I would have called him.

Early-Day Motions

Mr. Dobson: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday you said that you would consider points of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) about early-day motions. I wonder whether you have had the opportunity to consider them yet.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
I have now completed my consideration of the matter the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised, but I do not consider that I need to make any definitive statement, since I made my general position clear yesterday in dealing with points of order. I can only repeat that a motion must be capable of debate and not just an attempt, in whatever form, to write statements or outside speeches, documents, or summaries of them, into

the House's records. No doubt the Table Office will refer to me any motions which appear to offend against those criteria and I will then make my decision in the ordinary way as to whether they can be allowed to appear on the Notice Paper.
I remind hon. Members that, where a draft motion is disallowed, it is not in order to refer to it in the Chamber on a point of order, in the same way that disallowed questions may not be referred to in those circumstances.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 12 MAY

Members successful in the ballot were:

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes
Mr. Tom Clarke
Mr. Robert Boscawen

BILLS PRESENTED

LICENSING AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Jimmy Hood, supported by Mr. William McKelvey, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Frank Doran, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Sam Galbraith, Mr. James Wallace, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Allan Stewart, Mr. George Galloway and Dr. John Reid, presented a Bill to make provision for the control and authorisation of sales from off-sale premises of alcoholic liquor: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 May and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

REQUIREMENTS OF WRITING (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Allan Stewart, supported by Sir Hector Monro, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith and Mr. Bill Walker, presented a Bill to reform the law of Scotland with regard to the requirement of writing for certain matters and the formal validity of contractual and other documents and presumptions relating thereto; to abolish any rule of law restricting the proof of any matter to writ or oath and to abolish the procedure of reference to oath; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 May and to be printed. [Bill 127.]

Waste Recycling (Paper)

Mr. Keith Mans: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to promote the collection and recycling of waste paper.
Every year 90 million trees are chopped down to cater for Britain's demands for paper and board. Apart from the huge bill to import 90 per cent. of that raw material, it is estimated that 25 per cent. of the paper recycled in Britain is also imported. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) for providing figures for 1988 produced by the Department of Trade and Industry today which show that the import bill for paper and paperboard was more than £3 billion, the import bill for pulp was £716 million, and the import bill for recycled waste paper—used copies of the New York Times and the Washington Post, perhaps—was £9 million.
The percentage recycled is due to rise further when two new paper mills designed to use waste paper for the production of newspapers come into use. At the moment, less than 20 per cent. of domestic and commercial newspaper waste is recycled. If we are to cut the import bill significantly and keep those new mills operating on domestic recycled paper alone, the figure will have to increase to more than 40 per cent.
My Bill places a statutory duty on local authorities to draw up an approved scheme for recycling waste paper in their area. It also makes it compulsory for paper and board products to indicate on them whether or not they contain a specific percentage of recycled paper. Many local authorities, such as my own, the Wyre borough in Lancashire, already operate schemes. I want more and better schemes to be brought forward to enable the paper manufacturing industry to use ever increasing amounts of recycled paper from domestic and commercial sources in this country.
My Bill deals with the demand for recycled paper, as well as how it is collected in the first place. It is up to individuals, businesses and the public sector to create the demand for recycled paper. My Bill is designed to encourage them to do so. I also hope that other Government Departments will follow the lead of the Department of the Environment and start to use recycled paper. I have written to all Secretaries of State asking if their Departments will follow the example of the Department of the Environment. Closer to home, I hope that hon. Members will soon be communicating with their constituents on recycled paper. I shall shortly be in touch with the appropriate authorities to see how best that can be achieved. Within the Palace of Westminster, we produce a considerable amount of waste paper, as can be seen by a visit after lunch to the Library, where the wastepaper bins are full of waste paper which could be re-used.
I hope that businesses, particularly newspaper offices, which consume a considerable amount of newspaper and general paper products, will also consider using recycled

paper. Some newspapers, though not all, are already printed on recycled paper. I hope that in future all will be. It is particularly important that paper products which are used only once, such as cleaning cloths and newspapers, which have a relatively short life, are made from recycled material. It is a great waste for such products to be produced from raw pulp.
It is also important that the demand for lower grade recycled paper should be increased, because most recycled material falls into that category. There is not yet a sufficient demand for lower grades of recycled paper to deal with the supply that is undoubtedly available. Germany and the United States have had quite sophisticated collection procedures for waste paper for some years. Unfortunately, those have not worked as well as they should, simply because the demand for the end products has not been there. One reason for the glut of waste paper in the United States and the fact that it is exported to this country is that there is not sufficient demand for the products that can be produced from it.
In presenting the Bill I hope that members of the Press Gallery will not report these proceedings in an over-lengthy fashion. I hope that they will not resort to the device—recently employed by a well-known Sunday newspaper which says that it is environmentally conscious—of printing a special weekday edition to publicise a particular subject.
This Bill, like the Unleaded Petrol (Engine Adjustment) Bill that I introduced under the same procedure last year, focuses on a particular area of environmental improvement—in this case, the minimisation of waste. That strikes a sympathetic chord in a great many people in this country. In the past, we have been described as a nation of hoarders—until recently we tended to frown on our American cousins, who were depicted as throwing everything away—and the general public are sympathetic to the idea of recycling items that have already been used.
Waste minimisation must be a central theme of any responsible policy towards the environment because it encourages the prudent use of the world's natural resources, while polluting the environment as little as possible. By collecting and using recycled waste paper we cut our energy needs, we preserve the world's forests and we encourage a tidier Britain. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. James Paice, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. David Tredinnick, Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. David Nicholson and Mr. Hugo Summerson.

WASTE RECYCLING (PAPER)

Mr. Keith Mans accordingly presented a Bill to promote the collection and recycling of waste paper; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 7

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: REQUIREMENT TO SEEK EMPLOYMENT ACTIVELY

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 5, line 1, leave out clause 7.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments : No. 109, page 5, line 5 at end insert—
'(2A) A claimant may show that he is actually seeking employment under subsection (1) above if he is working in a voluntary capacity in order to further skills and experience for future employment.'.
No. 14, in page 5, line 28 at end insert—
'(2C) if on a day for which benefit might fall to be payable, a person is a volunteer, then the Benefit Officer shall regard the voluntary work undertaken as evidence tending to show that the person is available for and actively seeking work.
(2D) A person shall be deemed to be available for and actively seeking work if that person provides continuous care and support as a volunteer to another person under an agreement with

(a) the other person;
(b) a public authority; or
(c) a voluntary organisation.

(2E) For the purposes of (2D) above, "voluntary organisation" means a body which is not a public body but whose activities are carried on otherwise than for profit.'.

Mrs. Beckett: The amendment seeks to delete Clause 7. I propose to confine my remarks to our amendment and not to discuss the other two with which it is grouped—not because I do not sympathise with the motives of those who tabled the other amendments, but because they cover issues that we discussed in Committee and I want to talk about clause 7 as a whole rather than seek to amend it.
The amendment seeks to delete the clause because it is not merely objectionable and profoundly damaging: it is unnecessary. It paves the way for the infliction of considerable and direct distress which we believe will follow the passage of this legislation. That distress will be caused and exacerbated by the fact that the proposals in the clause are rooted in the collective gut instinct of the Government and their Back Benchers that the unemployed are responsible for their unemployment—that they caused it, that they could end it fairly easily if only they really tried, and that their unemployment, rather than being a symbol of society failing them, is a symbol somehow of their success at exploiting others.
That gut instinct in Conservative Members has triumphantly survived all the evidence to the contrary and even the most glaring and obvious gulf between the number of people seeking work and the number of jobs available to them. Today, some Conservative Members may well go through the form—I expect that the Minister will—of denying that in their heart of hearts they think that all the unemployed are workshy, but even those who make that denial drift with amazing speed away from the

formal assurances that only a tiny minority need the spur of the Bill towards discussing that tiny minority as if they constituted all the unemployed. I do not recall the Secretary of State for Social Security or the Secretary of State for Employment stressing in their speeches trailing this legislation at the Conservative party conference that only a tiny minority might be abusing the system.
I should make it crystal clear, so that no one will have any excuse for asking spurious questions, that my hon. Friends and I believe that people who have to be available for work—and who do not suffer from some disabling illness or whose family responsibilities do not keep them away from work—and who are drawing benefit should be looking for work. That is what the law says; it has stood unamended for 60 years; we have always supported it, and we do today.
We do not accept, however, that the law needs to be substantially amended and tightened as the clause suggests. We differ from some Conservative Members, because although we accept the framework of the law as it stands we are concerned about the way in which it may be exploited in its day-to-day administration to harry people off the unemployment register with no serious attempt being made to address the fact that they cannot find suitable work. Nevertheless, our amendment deals with the framework of the law, not with the use that is being made of it.
If the Government's argument is that the law is being broken or exploited, the answer is to enforce it and to use the remedies provided in it—which, heaven knows, are savage enough—not to introduce new and unneeded concepts.
Although we believe that the present law can potentially be misused, we are quite certain that the use —never mind the misuse—of the new law that the Government propose has enormous potential for causing untold misery and humiliation for those who are or become unemployed.
There cannot be the slightest doubt that this clause offers the opportunity for such humiliation. We believe that it might happen even if it is unintended. In the best possible case, if an unemployed person is looking for work and that work is available and not difficult to find, irritation and perhaps even distress will be caused because the provision will be unnecessary. It will be seen as a bureaucratic nuisance—an interference and a diversion from the serious business of finding another job. For those for whom the prospects of the search for work are not a matter of minor disturbance but of major difficulty, the clause will have a more seriously damaging effect. It requires that the unemployed person should provide on a week-to-week basis an account of all the steps he has taken in each week to look for work. That was made quite clear in Committee. It will not be enough to apply for, say, 17 jobs in one week and to do nothing in the following week. The whole point of the clause is that the search should be a continuing one, not that it should be averaged out over a period.
The Minister of State even made it explicit in Committee that an unemployed person who has the opportunity to benefit from a family holiday—perhaps arranged by one of the charitable organisations—will not be excused from continuing his job search in that week or weeks, and that failure on return from holiday to convince the local office that the job search had continued, could lead to the withdrawal of all rights of benefit.

Ms. Clare Short: I am sure my hon. Friend also remembers that the Minister said that anyone attending a funeral away from his home would be expected to prove that he was actively seeking work while attending the funeral.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that the Minister could not agree that even such circumstances should exclude people from job search.
What primarily concerns us is the harm that this unnecessary proposal may inflict particularly on three groups— those who are, for whatever reason, long-term unemployed; those who suffer from a sickness or disability which is not only distressing in itself, but handicaps their search for work; and the young homeless, who will have special difficulty combining the search for work with the search for a roof over their heads and who, for that reason, may be particularly unacceptable to employers.
In these debates Conservative Back Benchers have tended to raise a series of ridiculous objections which we have had to knock down. We recognise that the technique of keeping and discussing a log of job search activity and methods may have some value for some people, whose main problem is not the lack of available work or an inherent mismatch between their skills and capacity and the jobs on offer, but some hitherto unrecognised defect in the methods and approach of job search. No doubt those are the kind of people who are helped by a job club.
But Ministers know perfectly well that many assiduous attenders and participants at job clubs do not find work because the difficulties that they face cannot be resolved just by correcting their search techniques and are entirely outside their power to resolve—difficulties such as there just not being enough jobs or their not being offered the jobs that there are.
5 pm
Those are the people for whom being compelled to keep a log, to reveal its contents, to discuss it—no matter how sympathetic the hearer—means, by definition, a compulsion to chart, record, justify, explain and apologise for failure. That must be so, by definition, because the people who succeed will not have to do it any more.
The Government know, as we know, that not just hundreds but hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, will be charting failure, because, in spite of anecdotal evidence about jobs here or there or somebody whose friend had a job on offer for which no one applied, the overwhelming evidence is that, on the Government's own figures, there remain at least 2 million to 3 million people for whom there is no work. Even if the number of vacancies and unemployed people could ever be brought to match, they will never match in terms of skills, abilities and capacity.
We ask the Government just this once to think again; to use their imagination. By the law of averages, some Conservative Members must have some. The long-term unemployed already live—in many cases with great difficulty—with the fact that our society regards them as failures. They already live with the fact—most with great difficulty—that many of their fellow citizens tacitly or openly blame them for their condition, especially those who have never been unemployed and imagine that it is easy to do something about.
The people who care for the mental health and stability of the unemployed have long sought to advise them not to

give up, not to drop out, but to do their best to adjust to their circumstances in ways that allow them to maintain their self-confidence and their self-regard because, apart from anything else, that is likely to increase their chance of finding a job in the circumstances in the town in which they find themselves or in one where they can realistically look for work. Under clause 7 they will be forced up against their defects or their lack of success, but in any event their failure, week after week after week.
That will also apply to the already more evidently vulnerable—the army of those with some disability whom the Department's doctors in their wisdom have ruled to be fit for light work, sometimes in the face of strenuous opposition from the person's own general practitioner. Some are already being caused distress by being put through the restart process because often there is no light work available and even more often, employers are unwilling to hire them for that light work if it exists. Like others now required to be available for work, in future those people, too, will have to prove what steps they have taken every week, week in, week out, on holiday or not on holiday, to search for that light work.
Let me remind the House that for all those affected by this legislation, the fact that they have to be available for work does not necessarily mean that they are getting any money. They may be signing on only to maintain their pension credits. Some may have worked for 30 or 35 years but still not have enough credits to satisfy the long period of contributions or credits required to qualify for a full pension. If they are ruled not to be actively seeking work, they will lose those credits and perhaps their right to a full pension, even though they may have spent what most of us would consider a full working life in employment arid become injured or sick or made redundant towards the end of that working life. Are even this Government prepared to make that group jump through hoops to satisfy the prejudice of the ignorant and the comfortable who tend to call the unemployed "these people"?
What I have described is the law as it will be unless the House carries the amendment. The Minister says that matters will not be as bad as that in practice, not because that is not what the law says but because it will be sympathetically administered. It might be, and then again it might not be. Recent social security legislation is riddled with examples of cases where Ministers have assured us that in practice there will not be any problem, but that turns out not to be quite the case.
But in this case the problem is that the rigidity is in the law. It is on the face of the Bill. The Bill says that the test, abolished as long ago as 1930 because of its harshness and injustice, should be applied every week on a week by week basis.
Now that unemployment benefit is paid in arrears, those ruled not to be actively seeking work will lose their benefit for the two weeks at the end of which the judgment is being made. The chances must be extremely high that they will not be able to satisfy whoever has ruled them not to be actively seeking work that they are now actively seeking work for at least another two weeks. The chances are high that anyone who falls foul of the test will lost all right to benefit and possibly all source of income for, at the minimum, a month.
The clause is savage in its potential, it will be savage in its effects and it will lead inexorably to harassment and persecution of some whose only fault is that they cannot


get work. I beg hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote for the amendment and for the removal of the clause.

Mr. John Hannam: I shall not follow the line taken by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) in calling for the removal of clause 7. I want to speak to amendment No. 14 in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Members of the all-party disablement group. The amendment seeks to take account of the special situation facing people who work as volunteers in our society.
We talk a lot these days about care in the community policies and we are all anxious that the Government should soon bring forward their decisions on the Griffiths report, the report of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. But regardless of those factors, we have to recognise that during recent years of high unemployment the Government have actively encouraged unemployed people to become active citizens through community care work.
The voluntary organisations on which we rely for a great deal of our social provision have become heavily involved in using unemployed volunteers in community care. Organisations such as the Spastics Society, Age Concern, MIND and Mencap run everything from local befriending schemes to specialist day centres with volunteers who are expected and trained to develop close relations with those for whom they care and to develop a special trust with the persons cared for.
There are some 370 volunteer bureaux in the United Kingdom, recruiting about 110,000 new volunteers every year. Their average age is 29, and about 60 per cent. are women. Between one quarter and one third of the population take part in some kind of regular voluntary work.
Unemployed people are a significant proportion of volunteers and among the most active and energetic. They are used in all the caring professions from advice work through citizens advice bureaux, housing aid centres and law centres through to community care agencies, working with elderly people, people with disabilities, mental illness and mental handicap and homeless people and ex-offenders.
Hospitals, homes for children and old people, conservation work and many worthwhile environmental projects make up a pattern for which Britain is unique. They rely largely on voluntary help.
At present, under the existing system, volunteers face a number of difficulties in claiming benefits to which they are entitled, and because benefit officers have a great deal of discretion in deciding on the position of a volunteer, there are many inconsistencies of practice across the country. My amendment has the backing of all the voluntary organisations and seeks to provide the necessary clarity and uniformity of practice.
Clause 7 provides that unemployed persons will have to show that they are actively seeking work, and I do not dissent from that principle. But if the clause is not amended there may be serious problems for a great many volunteers. Benefit officers may, in many cases, conclude from the fact that a person is volunteering that he is not actively seeking work—a misunderstanding which has

been common under the present system. Volunteers who are actively seeking work, but whose voluntary work involves caring for people with whom they must build up trust and commitment, surely cannot be expected to break off that trust and commitment within 24 hours. They must be given longer notice, both to protect the disabled or other persons being looked after, and to give sufficient time for the various local authority and voluntary organisations to arrange for other volunteers to come forward to ensure continuous care.
Disabled people form a strong and supportive personal relationship with their volunteer carers. These are mutually beneficial. Crucially, these personal elements of care depend on a relationship of trust, care and familiarity, built up over a period. If a volunteer is forced to break off that relationship at 24 hours' notice, emotional and practical difficulties for the disabled person will be created. The voluntary caring organisations—the Spastics Society, Mencap and so on—will not have sufficient time to arrange cover by another carer. Our amendment would ensure that this special relationship was protected from the effects of benefit requirements designed to address a totally different problem.
It would also ensure that the special position of volunteers and volunteering was recognised, within the benefit system, as an important way into the job market. Volunteering is an important form of training by which skills are acquired and a person made more employable. Many people who have taken on volunteer roles have moved on into professional caring jobs, having gained the necessary skills in their volunteering relationships with disabled and other people.
I believe that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security is right in his promotion of community care and active citizenship, but it would be sad indeed if one of the unintended consequences of this legislation were the disruption of the supporting relationships built up in the community. That would, of course, be another push to the already spiralling residential care budget.
There are precedents for recognising the contribution of volunteering. Social security regulations of 1983 allow those involved in emergency services to be counted as actively seeking work. The proposed subsections (2C) and (2D) in amendment No. 14 simply seek to extend this recognition to an equaly important area of volunteering, where people are similarly concerned with the life and death of others unable to assist themselves. The proposed subsection (2C) states:
if on a day for which benefit might fall to be payable, a person is a volunteer, then the Benefit Officer shall regard the voluntary work undertaken as evidence tending to show that the person is available for and actively seeking work.
I do not believe that I am going against the grain of Government policy with this amendment. Indeed, I believe that I am correcting an oversight. I know that my hon. Friend values the work of the internationally and nationally respcted organisations that have asked for it, and I hope, therefore, that he will give us some encouragement when he replies.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened very carefully to the excellent speech of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam). The thrust of his amendment certainly does not go against the grain of Government policy. Similarly, amendment No. 109, which is part of this group, seeks to move with the grain of Government policy. Its purpose is to allow claimants to


show that they are seeking employment under subsection (1) if they are working in a voluntary capacity in order to further skills and experience for future employment. That seemed to be the nub of the argument by the hon. Member for Exeter, and it is the thrust of the brief remarks that I want to make.
Related matters were given some consideration in the Standing Committee. I wonder whether the Minister of State has had time to give further consideration to, and to develop, Government thinking in this direction. Problems could be solved, and benefits accrue, from these amendments. I certainly support the purpose of amendment No. 1—the lead amendment in this group—for reasons that I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee. The thrust of clauses 7, 8 and 9 is wrong-headed, and I remain unconvinced that they are necessary at all. However, I accept that the Government have set their face against any attempt to withdraw those clauses, so the best course that the House can adopt is to seek to amend them positively. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter and the amendment in my name both seek to do that in a constructive way.
5.15 pm
The new provisions will certainly have an effect on voluntary organisations and charitable organisations, which do very good work—a point that is of crucial importance. But perhaps even more important is the effect of the new legislation on the people who will be unable to continue to claim unemployment benefit, people who in the past were doing voluntary work. I am particularly concerned about people with disabilities. They are in a "Catch 22" situation. Although attempts are being made to encourage employers to take on quotas of people with disabilities, those people are in a very difficult situation in the employment market.
Many disabled people can make a very positive contribution to society as a whole in terms of the organisations with which they work as volunteers, but they also benefit in terms of the personal development that they can achieve and the confidence that they can re-establish by serving in a useful capacity with organisations such as we in our constituencies know so well. Such people are in a vicious circle. Voluntary work gives disabled people an opportunity to acquire office skills, computer skills, and so on. It gives confidence and provides material for a practical curriculum vitae that can be shown to prospective employers. Paying unemployment benefit to volunteers like that constitutes an investment, and is not a subsidy for any sort of easy life.
The only other point that I want to make is that the long-term unemployed, too, could be helped very substantially if the Government were to accept these amendments. Anybody who has been unemployed for a long time loses confidence. That is clear to any hon. Member who has constituents in this situation. The air of defeat with which some people come to see me actually depresses me. If such people could be provided with constructive and helpful positions as volunteers while claiming unemployment benefit, they could be kept much more mentally alert. Very often they would be in the right place at the right time when job opportunities came along. Their voluntary work would show future employers that they were determined to get out and about and to try to

improve their situation. It would keep their skills ticking over, and make possible the development of new skills if old ones had atrophied.
For all these reasons, the scheme that is proposed in these amendments, which seek to mitigate the effect of the new regime, are commendable. The opportunities are easily to hand to set up such as system. I am led to believe that the voluntary bureaux have worked out what I am fairly satisfied is a reasonably workable scheme. The Minister of State must not hide behind the difficulties of bureaucracy. That argument will not wash at all. The opportunity is readily to hand. There is no reason for resisting these amendments—certainly not on ideological or political grounds. They would provide substantial benefit to a significant number of people, and would go a long way to mitigating some of the disastrous effects that I suspect clauses 7, 8 and 9 may have if they are introduced unamended. I support the amendments in my name and in the name of the hon. Member for Exeter, and I hope that the Minister will give them very careful consideration.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) painted a picture of the economy in London that one does not recognise. She talked about the shortage of job opportunities. Just before coming to the House, I went out and bought a copy of the Evening Standard. I counted a total of 15 pages of job opportunity advertisements.

Ms. Short: Does that mean that there is a job for everybody?

Mr. Marshall: It means that, if one considers the number of registered unemployed and the number of job vacancies notified to jobcentres in London, and if one then applies the usual quotient, it becomes clear that there are many jobs available in London for those registered as unemployed. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) knows that a large number of jobs, particularly in the south-east, are not even notified to jobcentres because of the difficulty of filling them. For every vacancy notified to a London jobcentre there are probably three or four more waiting to be filled. One can say that in London there are about 100,000 vacancies available for people to fill.

Mr. John Battle: In the borough of Croydon, which includes the constituency of the Secretary of State for Social Security, there were in January 8,000 unemployed chasing 1,000 vacancies. Will the hon. Gentleman explain how all those people can obtain employment when there are insufficient jobs available? That pattern does not match the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, even in London.

Mr. Marshall: There is a strict convention. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that right hon. and hon. Members do not speak about the constituencies of other right hon. and hon.. Members. I am sure that Mr. Speaker would not expect me to talk about his constituency.

Mr. Battle: He probably has the same problem in his constituency.

Mr. Marshall: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) refers to 1,000 vacancies notified to Croydon jobcentres, but he knows full well that for every notified vacancy, there are three or four unnotified jobs available. The hon. Gentleman knows also that London is a


travel-to-work area, so that people living in Croydon do not have to work in Croydon but can work somewhere else. Because of London's wide travel-to-work area, a whole host of jobs are available to Croydon residents—both in Croydon itself and outside it.
When I visited the Golders Green jobcentre in my constituency, I was told that about 800 vacancies were on offer, but great difficulty was experienced in filling many of them—mainly because people are unwilling to accept them because the salaries offered do not compare favourably with unemployment benefit, However, some people do those jobs at those salaries, and they pay taxes. Why should they pay taxes to provide unemployment benefit to people who refuse to undertake those same jobs? Opposition Members do not understand the anger that the situation creates among those in work.

Ms. Short: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman really understands what he has just said. He claims that some people refuse jobs because they would be financially worse off by comparison with the unemployment benefit they receive. He is saying, then, that people should accept jobs that will give them a lower income than they have from unemployment benefit. Does he really mean that? Are there to be no minimum employment standards in this country?

Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Lady listens to my remarks, or if she reads them in Hansard tomorrow, she will learn that, not for the first time, she has distorted the remarks of a Conservative Member. No one is saying that people should receive less income in work than they might receive in benefits. We introduced family credit to ensure that families in work are not worse off than families out of work. The hon. Lady seeks to distort our true intentions. Our belief is that it is wrong that people who refuse work should automatically receive unemployment benefit, which is a view taken by the vast majority of the British people.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I support all the amendments in the first group because they would allow the useful development of people undertaking voluntary work. Many Conservative Members, including the Minister, want to see more of that because they support voluntary effort in society. That is why a Conservative Member has tabled an amendment. I hope that the Minister accepts that voluntary work should be taken as evidence of a person's determination to seek employment.
I support the wholesale opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) to the noxious new clause giving the Secretary of State power to introduce regulations. When the Department introduces regulations, they are generally of an oppressive and complicated nature, hurt the poorest most and erode the civil liberties of those in the worst position in society.
I am not in favour of the Minister for Social Security having any additional regulating powers. All the cuts implemented after 11 April 1988 were introduced by regulatory powers. Large chunks of oppressive legislation afflicting the poorest of the poor were introduced by the Minister with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. I do not think that he is a fit or proper person to legislate for anyone. I am not in favour of him. I recall the years when

he pretended to be a liberal in the Tory party, and how he sacrificed those pretensions to crawl after the Prime Minister for position.

Mr. Simon Burns: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.

Mr. Cryer: I shall certainly not withdraw one dot or comma of what I have just said. The Minister is a particular object of my contempt for taking the position of being on the wet side of the Tory party but then, like a number of Tory party wets, caving in at the flick of an eyebrow by the Prime Minister. If anyone wants me to make the position absolutely clear, I shall be delighted to do so.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend that I entirely agree with his remarks. During the progress of the Bill last year which took away benefits from many young people, I pleaded with the Minister for a special dispensation for groups which he now admits are in dire need and sinking into homelessness and despair, but the Minister could not give a guarantee then that he would help them. I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said about the Minister for Social Security.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has detailed knowledge of the exchanges that took place in Committee on that occasion.
The regulating powers available to the House are far from satisfactory. I am concerned about giving more time to primary legislation on the Floor of the House. If the Government were to withdraw the water privatisation Bill, for example, the House would have an opportunity to deal with more primary legislation, which is what it should be.
The availability for work test is an example of tried and tested legislation which has stood the test of time. When stories of benefits abuse arise, they are published mostly in the tabloid press and have little substance. I recall a press campaign during the last Labour Government's period of office, when they were accused of being soft on the unemployed and allowing benefits abuse. The evidence produced—which was supported, of course, by The Sun —was found to be almost wholly without substance. Of about 700 cases investigated, often arising from anonymous reports about neighbours, only four were found to have genuine substance, and were in any event already being investigated by the DHSS.
5.30 pm
One of the Government's faults is that they cannot leave anything alone. Because of their doctrinaire beliefs, they have to tamper with everything, and that doctrinaire belief is generally about attacking those who are most vulnerable. Labour Members accept the approach to availability for work that civil servants are used to administering. People applying for benefits also understand it. But now the position is to be changed and civil servants and applicants will have to make a new assessment of the position. New difficulties will be created, and any judgment to be made will be on the side of the Government, with the result that more people will be refused unemployment benefit. Guidelines will be issued by the Minister to supplement the delegated powers and will almost certainly instruct civil servants, in cases where a judgment has to be made, to decide against the applicant.
In discussions that I have had while canvassing over the years, people of previous generations have told me that they do not want to go back to the practices of the 1920s and 1930s, when the means test humiliated people genuinely seeking work. Labour Members canvassing in the last two elections often heard it said that the Prime Minister was taking us back to the 1920s and 1930s. Some of us thought that people who had had a hard time during the inter-war period might have been feeling that the situation in recent times was a rehash of the earlier experience and might perhaps be exaggerating slightly, but we were wrong because the Prime Minister is clearly taking us back to the 1920s and 1930s, when people were subjected to harrowing scrutiny and humiliation. That will be the effect on society of clause 7 of the Bill. That provision is a further attack on the unemployed.
The Government claim that the number of unemployed is falling, although it has not yet fallen to the number in 1979 when the Conservatives came to office. Conservative Members are always making comparisons with the situation under the Labour Government, but they have a long way to go to achieve an unemployment level as low as in 1979. It would be interesting to hear when the Government expect that figure to be reached. In the meantime, the unemployed are suffering under the legislation affecting them. Provisions protecting people against unfair dismissal have been diminished. The rights of an employer have been enhanced so that a person who is dismissed faces the possibility of an extended period without unemployment benefit. Industrial tribunals relating to unfair dismissals have had their jurisdiction removed or diminished.
All this is part of a general pattern to attack the unemployed. I have no doubt that, like all Labour Members, Members representing smaller parties have constituents who tell them that many of the jobs advertised are for skilled engineers and the like, so a person who has been a labourer all his life is unlikely to get one. People genuinely seeking work often despair at not being able to find a job. One of my own offspring applied for several jobs over a period of many weeks and was in despair when he was unsuccessful. Although it was for a relatively short period that he was unable to find a job—fortunately, he subsequently found a position—he showed the despair that people feel at the continued indifference of many employers to applications for work.
It will be difficult to clarify what is involved in a test of whether a person is actively seeking work. It will be extremely difficult to verify people's intentions. Will they have to show that they have written letters seeking employment? Will it thus be incumbent on them to make sure that they keep a carbon copy or take a photocopy of all their applications? Will they have to produce bus tickets to show that they visited places of employment to apply for jobs? If their application is refused, will they have to get a letter to that effect so as to continue receiving unemployment benefit?
Because of the great sea of legislation which already exists, people face the task of filling in a large number of forms in scrupulous detail to satisfy the Minister's civil servants and obtain benefits—a situation rather different from what people in the City seem to be able to get away with in relation to share applications, and so on. It is difficult to determine how much evidence people will need to produce under clause 7 in support of their applications

for benefit. This will impose yet another burden on ordinary people who have already been rejected inasmuch as they are unemployed.
Recently I had an interview with a man who was made redundant two years ago. As he was 58 years old, he wondered what hope he had of getting a job. The Minister may say that changes are afoot which will mean older people being called back to work, but that does not apply now. In Bradford, the Tory-controlled council is actually creating redundancies by sacking people and forcing them on to the dole. Indeed, one of the Government's proud boasts is about the way in which they have got rid of civil servants. A further instance of unemployment being created is the closure of the shipyard at Wearside. The Government have no proud record of creating and sustaining jobs in the public sector, but rather the reverse.
Unemployment is still a serious social problem, with 2 million people on the dole. Many thousands of people have been put out of work by the reduction in manufacturing activity—a total of 2 million since 1979. Under this Government all those people still walking the stones have a shadow over their shoulders of yet more bureaucratic interference and form-filling. They will have to produce more proof of their efforts to find work and satisfy more civil servants to obtain unemployment benefit.
If the Minister wishes to redeem himself in my eyes and those of other Labour Members, he must accept at least one of the amendments—preferably amendment No. 1—to show that he has some sympathy for the unemployed. He needs to show that he accepts their collective word when they tell him that they are genuinely seeking work because 99·9 per cent. of those people are desperately looking for work, want work, and are critical of a Government who seem unable to produce an economy that will provide it.

Mr. Burns: I hope that the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will forgive me if I do not take up the points he made, except to say that I do not believe the Bill, including clause 7, is an attack on the unemployed. If the amendment to clause 7, which is the centre of the Bill, were passed, it would completely emasculate the authority of the legislation by withdrawing from it the requirement actively to seek work in order to receive unemployment benefit. I see no reason why there should not be a clause requiring people actively to seek work in order to qualify for the benefit.
I agree with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that only a small minority in this country claim the benefit, are not working, do not want to work and would try to duck any job one gave them. However, we must not blow this fact up out of all proportion. The vast majority of people who are out of work want to work and are looking for jobs. The news that the unemployment figures are falling is certainly welcome, but it does not alter the fact that many people desperately want work.
I believe, however, that it is the duty of Government, of whatever party, to ensure that the money paid to people who are out of work goes to those who really want to work but cannot find a job, rather than to the small minority who have no intention of working and are on the benefits register simply because they see it as an easier alternative.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) sighs; but there are such cases. I am sure that, when they were canvassing for the last general election, hon. Members


heard the odd person—not loads of people of course—say, "Why should I work? I get x pounds a week in benefit, and if I were working I would probably not get as much as that." The Government have a duty to protect the taxpayer—and those in work—against such people. There is no reason whatever for an able-bodied person enjoying good health not to seek a job.
At present, just under 2 million people are unemployed, and there are between 600,000 and 700,000 vacancies. In Chelmsford, my constituency, 1,841 people are out of work and there are more than 700 vacancies. I believe that some of those vacancies could and should be filled. Companies in my constituency, such as Marconi Communications and the English Electric Valve Company, find it very difficult to get people to work for them. That is not because they are bad employers; they are certainly not that. It is because some people who are out of work could be working.

Mr. Battle: Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us what house prices and rents are like in his constituency, near those factories? Might not the fact that people do not take up such job opportunities have something to do with the fact that they cannot afford to move their families from the north to the south?

Mr. Burns: The hon. Gentlemen has a very valid point. The Housing Act, when it is in full operation, will help to create a right to let, and will build up the rented accommodation market. [Interruption.] I should be grateful if, having asked a question, the hon. Gentleman would listen to the reply before catcalling. I was not saying that people should come down from the north, because what he says is absolutely right: people do not want to come down to Chelmsford to work, particularly those in the north who are on lower incomes, because of the level of house prices. I was making the point that people already living in Chelmsford could take up work in companies that are suffering from a serious labour shortage.
A report published last year on the London labour market provides compelling evidence that thousands of jobs are available in the Greater London area for those who are out of work in that area, but they are not being taken up. I believe that clause 7 will encourage more people to take up such jobs. People who are genuinely and actively seeking work should have no worries, because they are already doing what the Bill, when enacted, will ensure that everyone does. If they are unsuccessful in their attempts to find jobs, they will receive the benefit to which they are entitled.
I shall oppose amendment No. I and support the Government. Bringing into benefit regulations a provision requiring that a person is actively seeking work is, in my view, long overdue.

Mr. Bill Michie: I should like to discuss the whole clause rather than the amendments, which are clearly of some importance and value.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, south (Mrs Beckett) that the clause paves the way for more and more misery to be inflicted on people who are already experiencing poverty, dilemma and much else. It will make such people responsible for their own dilemma. Those of us who represent areas of high unemployment know very well that most, if not all, of those who are out of work are

out of work not because of their own actions but because of the Government's economic strategy—a strategy designed not just to put people out of work, but to destroy the strength of the trade union movement and make it subject to the will of Government. That is all part of the Tory philosophy, and has been for some time.

Mr. Burns: How can the hon. Gentleman blame the Government for all the people who are still out of work in Dundee as a result of the Transport and General Workers Union fiasco?

Mr. Michie: I do not wish to educate the hon. Gentleman. If he knew anything about industrial strategy and trade union politics, he would also know that it is necessary to plan for the future rather than living for the day. Protection of jobs and of the union is essential to the future of working people—although that, of course, is not something that the hon. Gentleman wishes to see.
Instead of using so much valuable time in trying to find a way to save a few bob at the expense of the poor, the Government should use legislation and powers to create real jobs and stop hounding people who are not unemployed for their own ends. Many of those people will be permanently on trial, week after week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has already pointed out. We are returning to the bad old days; in fact, things are worse. We put a stop to this kind of legislation years ago because it was too harsh, but we now see that the present Government's legislation is harder than some of the bad laws that were scrapped a long time ago.
In most cases, the difficulties experienced by claimants actively seeking work will not be a good enough reason to qualify for benefit. It will be difficult for a claimant to prove that he could not make it for one reason or another, and he could lose at least a month's benefit. Moreover, people with disabilities which are not always recognised will find it hard to prove that they are actively seeking work, if suitable work is available.
The same applies to those who are caring for the sick or the disabled. One of the amendments makes the point that the more someone tries to help others the more likely he is to jeopardise his chance of drawing benefit. I should have thought that that would be entirely against the Government's philosophy, but perhaps nothing is sacred in today's Tory-rotten world.
The people whom the Government intend to penalise are not lazy; most are helping others in a voluntary capacity—working hard for nothing at all. The fact is that suitable jobs are not there, despite what the Government say. Work opportunities in many areas are very scarce. Someone could have a full-time job applying for jobs that do not exist. I wonder whether a full-time job trying to find that elusive post of real consequence and of a reasonable standard would qualify a person for benefit.
The Government do not seem to understand the plight of many unemployed people. In many cases, there may not be a job opportunity in the area. That may not seem much of a problem to hon. Members on £24,000 a year plus expenses, who can get into a taxi whenever they like. Sometimes, apparently, they get on to tube trains and talk to members of the proletariat, but they do not do that very often. Hon. Members can all travel first-class on the train.
However, we are talking about unemployed people who do not have the money to apply for jobs in other areas.


What will happen if a single parent sees a poorly paid job four or five miles away? Can she afford to take it? Can she afford the hours away from her family or sick relative? Should she apply for the job knowing very well that she cannot take it, but if she does not apply for the job will she be penalised? We asked those questions time and again in Committee.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): We discussed the matter in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman must know that a lone parent with children under 16 is not required to be actively seeking work. [Interruption.]

Mr. Michie: I did not catch that comical note.

Mr. Scott: I said that the hon. Gentleman must understand that a lone parent with children under 16 is exempted from that provision precisely because she is a lone parent.

Mr. Michie: I take the Minister's point.

Mrs. Beckett: In view of the Secretary of State's remarks about single parents being dependent on the State, when the Minister replies to the debate, will he tell us how long that happy circumstance might obtain? It is clear from my hon. Friend's remarks that many single parents wish to seek work and are trying to be active in the labour market but face these difficulties.

Mr. Michie: We discussed in Committee problems such as travelling to work and expenses, and I made that point that a four-mile journey in London is very different from a four-mile journey in Yorkshire or Derbyshire. The rules will apply throughout the country and will not change because people live in different areas, so, while I accept the Minister's point, I hope that he will realise that the Government have provided no help whatsoever for those people.
The Government have fallen for their own propaganda that there are plenty of jobs. The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) does not appear to understand the implications of the Bill. Because of the scrapping of the wages councils and protection against low pay, ultimately people will have to apply for extremely low-paid jobs and face the dilemma that they cannot afford to take the jobs but will be penalised by the DSS if they do not apply for them. The Government gave us no comfort in Committee to the effect that they would take that into consideration.

Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who might take the jobs to which he has referred would all he eligible for family credit, which would increase their incomes significantly?

Mr. Michie: I did not realise that the Government were so generous. I have written to the Minister about one or two cases of family credit, and I look forward to receiving his reply.
We have received no assurance that people who cannot afford to apply for jobs in certain areas will receive any help. I am afraid that the Government will have to come back in a year's time. They will not apologise for having made a mistake, but they will have the brilliant idea of helping some of those people to move.

Mr. Battle: Perhaps my hon. Friend should ask the Minister to apologise now. I am sure that the Minister

would not want inadvertently to mislead the House. If a single person is claiming income support, the availability for work test will not apply, but if someone is claiming unemployment benefit, the test will apply. That should be made clear. I would not like the impression that the Minister was misleading the House to go further than the Chamber.

Mr. Michie: I am sure that the Minister will put the record straight somewhere at the end of his winding-up speech if he has enough time.
The people that we are trying to defend are the victims of a rotten system. They are unemployed through no fault of their own, yet they will carry the burden of guilt and will continually have to prove their innocence week after week. They are not scroungers or lazy, but simply finding it difficult to find work, but many of them will not have the opportunity to prove their case.
Clause 7 is a very bad clause designed by a powerful Government to bash the most vulnerable people. It is time that the Government used time and legislation to help those people instead of bashing them. They could start by scrapping clause 7, and if they want to be unnaturally generous to people in need, they should scrap the entire Bill.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate as I was unavoidably detained.
I have an interest in clause 7 because I am a trustee of Community Service Volunteers and have been interested in the voluntary sector for a long time. It is clear that the Minister understands that the nature of unemployment varies considerably from person to person. Even in places such as my constituency, where there is no shortage of employment, a substantial proportion of those who are unemployed are psychologically incapable of taking a job, or even applying satisfactorily for employment. One of the most helpful ways of enabling those people to recover confidence and social skills is giving them the opportunity to work as a part-time or full-time volunteer with a voluntary organisation which is skilled and experienced at bringing the best out of such young people.
One example is the information bubble in Waterloo station which is manned by volunteers who have been given the job by Community Service Volunteers. Their task is relatively simple but becomes increasingly complex as the volunteers provide information about a wide variety of events in London, train timetables and so on, and t gives many people who have become socially isolated the chance to recover their self-confidence. Many of those young people have gone on to find perfectly satisfactory employment. The people who carry out that task vary enormously between people with advanced degrees to those who can barely read and write but are taught the job and manage to cope very satisfactorily.
Those people volunteer for two reasons—because they want company and support and because they know that such work is a way back into the employment market. I believe that they should be deemed to be actively seeking work because they are preparing themselves for work, and because the organisation for which they are working is perfectly willing to be quizzed about the people it employs in a voluntary capacity. That is particularly important, because some of those people could easily obtain a job as a street sweeper or another pretty solitary activity in many


parts of the country. But that could exacerbate the psychological isolation which those people—who are usually, but not always, young people—experience and render them unemployable in the medium and long term because eventually they will crack up and be unable to continue.
It is essential that amendment No. 14, or a similar amendment, be accepted. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has already said that he sees no serious difficulty in creating a system whereby the voluntary organisation set aside one day or half a day a week during which the individual would be expected to apply for jobs. It would be wrong for people engaged in voluntary activity under the auspices of a properly organised and caring organisation to be deemed not to be seeking work.

6 pm

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) said that we were now getting to the guts of the Bill and the reason why it was introduced. That point was confirmed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns). This is not a social security Bill, but an employment Bill. Its origins are in the Department of Employment and it seeks to further the Government's strategy of reorganising our labour market, which they have been working out for a considerable- time. That reorganisation involves positively encouraging low-paid employment in our economy and lowering the protections and security in employment of workers. It has been, sadly and disastrously for many people and for the efficiency of the economy, an enormously successful strategy.
We now have 2 million more low-paid workers than in 1979 and, disgracefully and shockingly, 49 per cent. of people in employment are now low paid on the measure set down by the Council of Europe, which is the equivalent of £132 for a full working week. Clause 7 is intended to take that process further and to force more people to take even lower-paid and worse employment. Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete clause 7, but it is impossible to understand the purpose of clause 7 without considering clause 9.
Clause 7 will require those who become unemployed to prove, on a weekly basis, that they are actively seeking work. If they do not, they will be threatened with the loss of benefit for six months. Clause 9 removes any minimum conditions about the jobs offered, so people will be forced to take the jobs that remain vacant in jobcentres—in areas of high and low unemployment—because the pay and conditions are so disgraceful. People will be forced into those jobs. As employers realise that, the unemployed will be used as a battering ram to erode standards of employment. That is clearly the long-term strategy of the Government and the Bill will make the position much worse.
The hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) did not intend, I am sure, to mislead the House, but he was wrong when he said that it was not the purpose of Conservatives to force people to take jobs that pay less than their benefits. The Opposition moved an amendment on that in Committee, but it was turned down by the Government and the hon. Gentleman did not vote for it; he supported the Government. Let everyone be clear that

under the Bill, people will be forced to accept employment that pays less than the level of benefit to which they are currently entitled. That is what the hon. Gentleman voted for in Committee, but he may have forgotten.
We know that the Conservative Whips do not allow Conservative Members to contribute in Committee, but that does not mean that the hon. Member for Chelmsford might not have learnt a little from the debate. He said that, in Chelmsford, there were 700 vacancies and 1,800 people unemployed. Obviously, he has not learnt what we tried to explain to him—that vacancies do not wait for ever for the unemployed to fill them. There is an enormous turnover. If the hon. Gentleman goes back to the jobcentre, he will find that of those 700 vacancies, most have been there for a short time and that the overwhelming majority have been taken by people already in employment who are seeking improved conditions.
The chances are enormously high that many of the 1,800 people cannot apply for the 700 vacancies because they do not have the necessary skills. If there are highly skilled job vacancies that cannot be filled in Chelmsford, that is the fault of local employers for not supplying adequate training so that the jobs can be filled.

Mr. Burns: The two companies that I mentioned in Committee are bending over backwards to take on unskilled workers and are more than prepared to train them, so that they can learn the necessary skills. They realise that it is difficult to find skilled workers in the area. English Electric Valve had over 200 vacancies last year that it could not fill. As a good employer, it is more than prepared to train unskilled people to fill jobs, yet it still has difficulty in filling them.

Ms. Short: The next time I visit Chelmsford, I shall call into the jobcentre. As the hon. Gentleman may know, I attend to these matters in some detail. I visit jobcentres and study the labour market. Chelmsford is not an island. Unless it is quite different from the rest of the country, the description of the likely employment market I have given will apply to Chelmsford.
To hear Conservative Members speak, one would think that we did not already have benefit conditions that have been enormously tightened in recent years. People have to be available for work to obtain unemployment benefit, and the tests are rigorously applied. As a result of the Government's strategy which I have already explained, and because of the prejudices among Conservative Members, many new provisions have been introduced in recent years. When people first become unemployed they have to fill in a questionnaire of 22 questions as part of the availability for work test. Under the restart scheme, the unemployed are called in every six months and receive a letter saying that their benefits will be stopped unless they come for an interview. Before that interview, they have to fill in a questionnaire of 17 questions. Many of the unemployed take places in job clubs or on one-week restart courses after going through that frightening process.
Research shows that the majority of the unemployed believed that the schemes were compulsory and that if they had not accepted places on them, they would have lost their benefits. The unemployed are harassed now and are frightened into schemes that lead them nowhere. The unemployed want jobs and we all want them to have jobs and good training, but the Government are so obsessed


with reorganising the labour market and cutting wages that the schemes seek to lower wage expectations rather than give skills that enhance the employability of the individual and the competitiveness of our economy.
The only purpose of this change is that matters should become worse and the conditions tougher. Anyone who is close to unemployed people who go through the restart scheme knows how much fear there is already. In Committee, we gave many examples of people who were frightened and harassed by the process, including examples of many older workers who had worked from 14 to 50-odd and had been laid off in the great recession induced by the Tory Government when they came to power in 1979. They are harassed under the restart scheme and will be humiliated under the processes in the Bill.
I am especially concerned about unemployed people who seek to study under the 21-hour rule. People who do that are worthy of great admiration. They have the experience of being unemployed and of having to manage on little money, but they have the motivation to find a place at college and to take courses that enhance their employability and learning. The Government have already wiped out that opportunity for 16 and 17-year-olds. About 30,000 of them used to use the opportunity to acquire 0 and A-levels. I know constituents who went on to become graduates through that difficult route. Now about 300,000 older workers will be affected. I do not know the precise figures, because one cannot obtain them from the Department of Employment.
In Committee, the Minister said that he was sympathetic to that point. I pushed him for an assurance and he asked me not to push him further. I shall push him now because we want an assurance. It will be intolerable if people who seek to study while on benefits are prevented from doing so and forced into schemes such as employment training, which lead them into crass employment experiences and not into decent prospects of a job and enhanced employability. It is no good the Minister saying that social security does not exist so that people can be educated and trained. Employment training, the Government's main scheme for unemployed people, consists of people training while on social security benefits. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give us serious assurances that the regulations will explicitly provide that people who are studying under the 21-hour rule are allowed to continue to study despite the tighter regulations that are being introduced.
I add my support to the amendments that have been tabled to protect voluntary workers. The Bill presents a real danger that people who do voluntary work will be found not to he actively seeking work and that they will be penalised and lose their benefit because they sought to help their community when they were unemployed.
Taking up voluntary work can be an enormously successful strategy for getting a job. When people go to agencies in areas of high unemployment to seek advice about how they might get employment, they are constantly advised to look for voluntary work in the area in which they are interested because that will give them confidence and experience and when openings occur, they will get jobs. Many people have found employment in that way. If the Minister does not make some such provision, not only will much of the care that is provided to our communities be destroyed, but a valuable route into employment will also be destroyed.
This is a foul Bill and clauses 7 and 9 are an outrage. They will mean that lots of our people will be harassed and humiliated as happened in the 1930s. That is not an exaggeration because the parallels are close. The Bill will also mean that more and more of our people will be low paid. Low pay is not only bad for individuals—it is no use the Government talking about family credit, because only those with dependent children are eligible for family credit and many people without dependent children could be forced into a job that pays less than their benefit—but is enormously bad for the economy. It leads to a high turnover of labour, low investment and poor training. Britain will have no future as an economy that rests on low pay. However, more and more the Government's strategy is to restructure our economy in that way. That is bad for individuals and the future of the economy. Clauses 7 and 9 will make everything much worse for a lot of people.
The Chancellor and the Government talk about inducing a recession in our economy to deal with the problem of inflation and they hope that we will have a soft rather than a hard landing. That means that there will be another—and inevitable—increase in unemployment. Harsher conditions will be imposed, when it is inevitable that unemployment will start to increase again. I am afraid that that is the future we face.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise to colleagues for having missed a quarter of an hour in i:he middle of the debate when I was in Committee upstairs, however, I am glad, even at this late stage, to be involved in the debates on this Social Security Bill, because I was involved with the preceeding two Bills and I was sorry to miss the Committee stage of this Bill.
I want to address my remarks not only to amendment No. 14 which has been tabled in my name, which was spoken to by the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and which is supported by the all-party disablement group, but also to the basic amendment, amendment No. I, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). I support both, if that is not mutually exclusive.
I refer first to the position of volunteers. I have close contacts with the Spastics Society and with Mencap and am very much aware of the important role played by volunteers in such disablement groups. We must ensure that in its final form the Bill cannot be interpreted—much is open to interpretation—by people who do not fully appreciate that significance in such a way as to reduce the number of volunteers available or to lean on them to move in other directions.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) spoke of the enriching experience of being a volunteer and of the help that it gives in finding other work. Both those points are true. When the Minister replies to the points that have been made about volunteers, I hope that he will give an assurance not just that they ca .n continue to be volunteers but that they will have to show that they are still actively looking for work because that could be a "Catch 22" for volunteers. If one is actively looking for work, that cuts across one's voluntary work, which would not be a satisfactory outcome. It would be better to have the wording suggested in amendments Nos. 109 or 14 to try to overcome that.
6.15 pm
I accept that amendment No. 14 may need to be tightened and that we may need definitions of the voluntary organisations. I can see difficulties, in that people might be able to create a voluntary organisation and one person might be able to become a voluntary organisation and "employ" an unemployed person as a volunteer. Given that the wording may need to be tightened, I hope that the Government will not rest their case just on the fact that, of course, people can continue to be volunteers but they must also show that they are actively looking for work because that would not be anything like satisfactory.
I turn now to clause 7. The area that I represent is extremely scattered. There are 93 villages in my constituency and some people may live 15 or 20 miles from their unemployment benefit office. If the expectation is that people will go to the office regularly to show that they are actively involved in seeking work, significant costs could arise. Indeed, trying to go to interviews or to knock on doors asking for a job also involves costs. People may live 10 miles from their nearest possible employer, there may well be no bus service and transport could be difficult. Many unemployed people will not have cars of their own because of their financial circumstances.
The question then arises, is writing a letter enough? It may be—I do not know. Other hon. Members who are present may also have received the letter that I received the other day from a young person in a hostel in Grimsby. It had clearly been written to more than one Member of Parliament and I know that another colleague has received the same letter. It was a one-liner, asking, "Have you got a job for me?" One's first instinct was, "What on earth does this guy think he is doing?" The second instinct, of course, was to give priority to that letter above a lot of others and to give a fairly substantive answer to explain why one does not. However, I wonder whether a one-line letter like that meets the requirements. If that is the case and we are to have an industry of turning out, cyclostyle, "Have you got a job for me?" letters, all that we are requiring to meet the provisions of the Bill is the cost of a stamp per week to show that one is seeking work.
That raises another problem, to which hon. Members have already referred, about employers' reactions. There is nothing more dismal or soul-destroying for somebody who takes the trouble to write a letter—not just a one-liner, but a substantive letter trying to get a job—than not even to receive an acknowledgement from the employer. I know that that happens far too often. If we are to tighten the system in the way that the Government want, there is a tremendous responsibility on employers to reply in substance to every letter they get. That should be the other side of the coin of these provisions. When people take the trouble to write such letters, a reply should be sent to them which can then be shown to any authorities that may want to see the evidence.
I welcome the part of the Government's provisions that will remove the disbarment of seasonal workers from receiving unemployment benefit after their third year of seasonal work. Where those rules are introduced, I hope that such workers will not be hit by the impossibility of finding work out of season or of finding even a job opportunity to which they could apply out of season.

Unemployment in the Lleyn peninsula in my constituency reaches a high of 25 per cent. in winter but can come down to 10 per cent. in mid-summer. The difficulty is that people will need to prove, in mid-winter, that they are actively looking for work—that is, at the very time that no work is available. Therefore, we must ensure that we are not just changing the excuse for not paying unemployment benefit to those people who most certainly would like to work if work is available.
The hon. Member for Ladywood referred to the level of pay. There is a danger that people will be forced into working at low levels of pay. That danger could be significant. The other side of the coin to the tightening of the rules should be a move towards a national minimum wage policy. If people are driven to take work at a low level of remuneration because otherwise they would lose their benefit, vulnerable people may be exploited.
It seems clear from the evidence available to me that those who will have the greatest difficulty in showing that they are actively seeking work are those in the 50-plus group who have got into an almighty unemployment rut through no fault of their own, but because they have been caught by the recession, by structural changes that have taken place in industry and by the decline of many older industries; young people who do not have experience of life and who do not know how to go about obtaining work; and disabled people. For those three categories of people I am fearful about the effect of the Bill.
Inevitably, there will always be some who are working the system for their own benefit, but the overwhelming majority of people are not doing that. There are now possibly more people working the system than were doing so 10 or 15 years ago; they are in the habit of being unemployed because of unemployment—they are in a vicious spiral—and I favour any policy that helps them get back into work. But such help must mean the provision of dignified work, with people being helped and trained for work and not having the threat of being without a livelihood if they do not obey the letter of what is, as it stands, a rather unclear law.
I do not suppose that the Government will accept the amendment and delete clause 7, although I should support it if it were taken to a Division. I hope that between now and the Bill appearing in another place they will give careful thought to the points that hon. Members have made. I hope also that, when the Minister replies tonight, he will answer the questions that we have asked and will deal with the points that have been made about amendment No. 14 concerning volunteers, an issue of significance to many organisations.

Mr. Scott: It was common ground in Committee that unemployed people should have to seek employment rather than adopt a totally passive state. The case made at that stage by some hon. Members was that the present availability rules were sufficient to achieve that common goal and that the use of the phrase "actively seeking work" was unnecessary. I believe that the case is proved in the opposite direction.
We know—my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) spelled this out—that more jobs are becoming available. But present legislation does not make it clear that unemployed claimants must go after those jobs. Some assert that it does, but I believe that the


commissioners' decisions add up to a substantive case that it does not. People are required to be available for work, and that will remain the situation under the 1975 Act.
The decision of the commissioner in R(U)5/80, which was often quoted in Committee, says that availability must be more than a simple passive state—a claimant must take some active step to draw attention to his availability. As I said in Committee, a series of decisions since then by the commissioners—authoritative decisions, although unreported—have made it clear that when someone declares that he is available for employment and backs that up by taking some simple step, such as attending a jobcentre, that is enough.
The case that arose in Committee was of a person who simply turned up at a jobcentre, did not leave any name, address or contact and was judged to have done enough under the existing arrangements. A claimant today would not have to do more than that; he would not have to examine openings, look in the newspapers, inquire of friends or contact employers to satisfy the availability for work condition.

Ms. Short: I am sure that the Minister does not wish to misrepresent the position. The present position is that if a person's availability is called into question, he must prove that he is actively seeking work and produce evidence to that effect.

Mr. Scott: It can be judged—even if a person has not taken those steps—that having been available, he can continue to he entitled to benefit. The commissioners have decided that. They have decided that those who have been available in the most passive way are entitled to continue to receive benefit. It is common ground, particularly when unemployment is falling rapidly and more jobs are being created, that we should be motivating, encouraging and persuading people to take advantage of the country's increased prosperity.
The clause is not a vehicle for harassing unemployed people. It is a way of encouraging them to get back into work. As I said in Committee, repeating what I said on Second Reading, only a tiny minority of the unemployed could be described as workshy or trying to work the system. As we know—as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said today and as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said more than once in Committee —there is a minority of that sort. But the rest of unemployed people, particularly in an improving unemployment situation, need encouragement to seek out the increasing number of vacancies that are becoming available. So I do not resile from the broad thrust of what we are trying to do in the clause.
I promised in Committee to look sympathetically at the question of holidays. I have now agreed with the Secretary of State for Employment that in regulations we shall have power to deem that for up to two weeks in any 12-month period a holiday can be taken, and people will be deemed to be actively seeking work during those two weeks. I hope that that will be accepted as a sensible solution to that issue.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) again returned to the point she raised in Committee about people attending funerals and not being able to satisfy the condition of actively seeking work during the day or two they were away. As we have changed the test from being a daily test of availability to a weekly test of

actively seeking work, there is no reason why somebody should not attend—as it might be in the hon. Lady's case, across the water—for a few days, and for the rest of the week be able to take sufficient steps to show that he or she was actively seeking work.
The hon. Lady also raised the question of studying, and my remarks on that will, in a sense, have an impact on my comments about volunteering. I accept that if someone is taking a course of study, that person is, simply by doing that, helping to improve his or her eventual possibility of getting back into employment. That should be taken into account, but I do not believe that simply because a person is engaged in part-time study, he or she should be exempt from any requirement to take steps actively to seek work. The fact that a person is studying should be part of the pattern that is taken into account when a judgment is made about the totality of the effort that is being made to get back into employment.
In Committee we discussed the sort of steps we would expect people to take to show that they were actively seeking work—following up advertisements in newspapers and visiting employers and so on. The steps that they would take would, of course, vary according to the type of employment that they were seeking.
There are some types of employment where turning up on the site and offering one's services would be appropriate. There are others where a properly prepared CV, sent to a number of employers, would be more appropriate to show that one was actively seeking work. Our intention is that the system should respond in a flexible and sympathetic way to the differing needs of people in showing whether they are seeking work.
In essence—this will sound familiar to those who were members of the Committee—there is a contract between the state and unemployed people. As a Government, we should be trying to run the economy in such a way that more jobs are created. If people are unemployed through no fault of their own, they should, for the relevant period, be entitled to unemployment benefit.
There should be a state service providing advice about vacancies and guidance to people on how they can get back into work. But the other side of that contract—which is that people should be prepared to take active steps to find their way back into employment—should not be ignored. That is the essence of the contract, and in my view it is sensible and proper.
I am keen on people using their time to study, and I am also keen that individuals should make good use of their time when they are unemployed, and there can be few things more beneficial than caring or otherwise using one's time in a voluntary capacity. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), I have had close contact in the past with Community Service Volunteers and I know that the work done by volunteers is immensely valuable to society in general. Those in voluntary work are improving their prospects of gaining employment in the longer run, and that is what clause 7 is all about.
I hope that I can persuade the House that the amendments, which are well intentioned and with which I have sympathy, are not necessary, as we already intend to make special provision for the treatment of voluntary work. The hon. Member for Caernarfon recognised that there are technical defects in both amendments. I shall not rest my case simply on the technical defects. I am anxious to persuade my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who put their names to the amendments that I recognise that


some charitable organisations depend heavily on the use of unemployed people as volunteers. The work that they do is commendable, important and of benefit to the individuals as well as to society, but I do not believe that the fact that they are doing voluntary work should mean that they should be exempted from the need to take steps actively to get themselves back into paid employment. That would be wrong.

Mr. Rowe: I want to be absolutely clear. If someone wishes to start a career in residential work, looking after the elderly, and if he is told that he should work first for six months as a volunteer, is my hon. Friend saying that that would still not be regarded as seeking work?

Mr. Scott: I cannot accept that the purpose of unemployment benefit is to provide for and sustain such activity. The purpose of unemployment benefit is to insulate people who are unemployed through no fault of their own. I will provide in regulations that when a decision is taken about whether someone is actively seeking work, the fact that the person is engaged in voluntary work should be one factor to be weighed in the balance. But, just as anyone doing voluntary work at present has to be available for work to qualify for unemployment benefit, that person will have to take steps —in most cases fewer steps than someone not doing voluntary work—to show that he has been actively seeking work.
I do not believe that it would be impossible for people to take additional steps, such as writing letters in the evening, telephoning employers and so on, to satisfy the system that they are still actively seeking work while carrying out voluntary activities. I shall make sure that that is provided for in regulations so that the adjudicating authorities can take proper account of it. That is the right balance. The very fact that it will be accounted for specifically in regulations means that it will be impossible for adjudicating officers not to take account of it. In those circumstances I hope that those who put their names to the amendments will agree not to press them. As I have said, they are in any case, technically not accurate. If they are pressed, I shall have to ask the House to reject them.
As was clear in Committee, there is a fundamental division between the two sides of the House on clause 7. I do not think that further argument will resolve that division. I suspect that the only way to resolve it will be in the Lobby.

Mrs. Beckett: It has been an interesting debate. We remain of the view that the clause is as unnecessary as it is harsh. The issues raised on the various amendments about, for example, the impact of the clause on the possibility of study or voluntary work, show how harsh it might be. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State for Employment have agreed that if a person takes two weeks' holiday he can be deemed to be actively seeking work in that period, but it shows paradoxically how tight the provision is when that has to be accounted for specifically in the legislation.
We have concentrated primarily on the provisions of the law rather than on its administration. In a sense the Minister sought to justify the law by saying that its

administration can be flexible and sympathetic. That is possible. Equally it is possible that the reverse will be the case. The law itself is draconian. The clause will place enormous discretion in the hands of fairly junior officers who may use the denial of the right to benefit to penalise people who come before them if they judge differently from the Minister, in general terms, the value or the justice of people being able to study or to do voluntary work while unemployed.
What the Minister said to his hon. Friends about the value of voluntary work was revealing. It is generally recognised in the House and outside that people who have no choice about joblessness have tried to turn that joblessness to good use by taking such opportunities as arise to study, to do voluntary work and so on, in the hope usually of improving their capacity later to find work. The message from the Minister to his hon. Friends about their amendment on voluntary work is in effect that that permission, as it were, is being withdrawn. The Minister said that he will cover that position in regulations, but the thrust of what the Government are saying is that the recognition of the powerlessness of many jobless people is being withdrawn and that they should spend their time, however fruitlessly, with however little point and to whatever effect, just looking for work. That is why we wish to delete clause 7.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 306.

Division No. 177]
[6.36 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Armstrong, Hilary
Dixon, Don


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dobson, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Doran, Frank


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Battle, John
Eadie, Alexander


Beckett, Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foulkes, George


Buchan, Norman
Fraser, John


Buckley, George J.
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Galloway, George


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gould, Bryan


Clay, Bob
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Grocott, Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Cousins, Jim
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Cryer, Bob
Henderson, Doug


Cummings, John
Hinchliffe, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cunningham, Dr John
Home Robertson, John


Dalyell, Tam
Hood, Jimmy


Darling, Alistair
Howells, Geraint






Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Parry, Robert


Hoyle, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Illsley, Eric
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Ingram, Adam
Reid, Dr John


Janner, Greville
Richardson, Jo


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Robertson, George


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Charles
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfedder, James
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ruddock, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Terry
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Livsey, Richard
Sillars, Jim


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McAIMon, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steel, Rt Hon David


McKelvey, William
Steinberg, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Stott, Roger


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Straw, Jack


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mallon, Seamus
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Vaz, Keith


Martlew, Eric
Wall, Pat


Maxton, John
Wallace, James


Meacher, Michael
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michael, Alun
Wareing, Robert N.


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wray, Jimmy


Mullin, Chris
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Murphy, Paul



Nellist, Dave
Tellers for the Ayes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Frank Haynes and


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Ray Powell.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley



NOES


Adley, Robert
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Allason, Rupert
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Amess, David
Bowis, John


Amos, Alan
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Batiste, Spencer
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Budgen, Nicholas


Bendall, Vivian
Burns, Simon


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Burt, Alistair


Benyon, W.
Butcher, John


Bevan, David Gilroy
Butler, Chris


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Butterfill, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Body, Sir Richard
Carrington, Matthew





Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hill, James


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hind, Kenneth


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howard, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hunter, Andrew


Cormack, Patrick
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Irvine, Michael


Cran, James
Irving, Charles


Critchley, Julian
Jack, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Janman, Tim


Curry, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Day, Stephen
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Devlin, Tim
Key, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knapman, Roger


Dover, Den
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Durant, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Knox, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Latham, Michael


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawrence, Ivan


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forman, Nigel
Lord, Michael


Forth, Eric
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Madel, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Major, Rt Hon John


Goodlad, Alastair
Mans, Keith


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maples, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marland, Paul


Gorst, John
Marlow, Tony


Gow, Ian
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Miller, Sir Hal


Hague, William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miscampbell, Norman


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David


Hannam, John
Moate, Roger


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Monro, Sir Hector


Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Harris, David
Moore, Rt Hon John


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hawkins, Christopher
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hayes, Jerry
Moss, Malcolm


Hayward, Robert
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mudd, David


Heddle, John
Neale, Gerrard


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nelson, Anthony






Neubert, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Nicholls, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stevens, Lewis


Norris, Steve
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Summerson, Hugo


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pawsey, James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Powell, William (Corby)
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raffan, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Tracey, Richard


Redwood, John
Tredinnick, David


Renton, Tim
Trippier, David


Rhodes James, Robert
Trotter, Neville


Riddick, Graham
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Waller, Gary


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rost, Peter
Ward, John


Rowe, Andrew
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ryder, Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Sackville, Hon Tom
Watts, John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wheeler, John


Scott, Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wilshire, David


Shelton, Sir William
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Woodcock, Mike


Sims, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Soames, Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 9

DISQUALIFICATION FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 6, line 10, leave out `(c) and (d)' and insert 'and (c)'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 110, in page 6, line 18, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3A) For subsection (4) of that section "meaning of suitable employment" there shall be substituted—
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, regulations shall

(a) prescribe matters which are to be taken into account or determining whether a person does have good cause for any act or omission;"'

No. 2, in page 6, line 31, at end insert
'other than—

(a) whether the level of remuneration is reasonable for that employment, or
(b) any excuse that the person would be likely to incur in connection with that employment.'.

No. 3, in page 6, line 38, after 'which', insert

'is unsuited to his skills or experience or'.
Government amendment No. 99.
No. 111, in page 7, line 40, at end add—
'(7) Nothing in sections 7, 8 and 9 shall prevent the adjudication officer when reaching any decision under sections 7, 8 and 9 taking into account patterns of employment associated with particular professions.'.

Mrs. Beckett: The amendments relate to clause 9 which, as indicated in the debate on amendment No. 5, is of a piece with other aspects of the Government's approach to wages and the nature of the job search required by clause 7. The effect of clause 9 as it stands will be to require people to apply for or take jobs or training places without regard to the suitability of those jobs or training places to their skills and experience, and without regard in particular—again, this is written on the face of the Bill —to the wages offered or to the conditions of work. Rejecting or failing actively to search for any work, at any wages and in any conditions, may lead to benefit being suspended—probably, as seems to be the norm these days, for the full period of six months, as there is no evidence of discretion available to adjudication officers in that respect.
No Government have offered such a carte blanche to the greedy, irresponsible or exploitative employer since unemployment insurance was invented in 1911, and with it the idea that a job offer could be rejected without incurring disqualification from benefit if there was good cause and the offer was not of suitable work. It is important to emphasise that, under the law, after a period of unemployment people might be called on to widen their horizons beyond the direct field of their previous job, but they could not be disqualified for rejecting or refusing to pursue a job if the wages and conditions on offer were not reasonably fair once the scope of search had been widened.
Through this clause, as through other measures such as the removal of wages councils, the Government seem to be trying to erase the idea that there is any such thing as a proper job or a living wage. In pursuit of that objective, people may be pressured by the threat of disqualification and suspension of benefit to take steps that they may believe—and may be correct to believe—are damaging to their long-term prospects of re-employment. Someone with a skilled job or a supervisory or managerial post might be pressed to take a job as a janitor or clerical assistant because that was all that was readily available.
Ministers claim that that will not happen, but that is not what the law says. What Conservative Back Benchers say is more interesting and truthful. They say, "Why not?" They want to know what is wrong with being a janitor or clerical assistant and why people should not be pushed into any job because any job is better than being on the dole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear Conservative Members justifying my observations.
It is far from clear whether employers are as open-minded as Conservative Members. The Opposition regret that an employer receiving an application for a supervisory or managerial post from a former manager or supervisor now labouring on the shop floor may not get further down the application form than "present occupation" before throwing it in the bin and saying, "He must be joking." One of our prime complaints about the Bill is that the only way in which it seeks to affect the job market is by punishing the unemployed. It has nothing to offer on other obstacles to possible re-employment, such as the attitudes of employers.
Amendment No. 116 deals with the question of retaining the word "suitable" in section 20(1)(d) of the Social Security Act 1975. That subsection would otherwise be able to disqualify someone who has without good cause refused to carry out any recommendations given with a view to assisting him to find employment. When we are not even talking about a job which is necessarily available to that individual, but merely about the advice that he might be given to look for a job, it is right to retain the concept of people looking for "suitable" employment. Certainly it would be wrong to disqualify a person for failing to carry out a recommendation.
Amendment No. 2 is directed specifically at the level of pay and would write into the Bill two exceptions to the general ban on taking into account at any stage the level of remuneration—whether the rate of pay is reasonable for the job and also work expenses. It is plainly absurd to suggest that no account should be taken of the rate of pay. Someone is entitled to expect a reasonable rate of pay for the job on offer, whatever the job or however long the period of unemployment that the person has suffered. The Government's view on this is not altogether clear. In Committee the Minister agreed that
Someone who turns down a job offered to him privately at a derisory wage should not be disqualified from unemployment benefit.
The Minister seemed to fear that someone in a private agency might tip off the Department of Social Security that a person had turned down a job which it was wholly unreasonable, even in the Government's view, for him to accept and he might then be disqualified from benefit. The Minister said:
I want to find a way through regulations preventing that from happening, but cannot say exactly how it is possible to do it, nor what the impact might be on other sources through which the job might be advertised."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 February 1989; c. 487–533.]
We pressed the Minister on that and asked what would happen if a job was advertised not just through a private agency—we agree that the Government should act in that case–but by a private agency and at the jobcentre, whether or not the person knew that the job was on offer at the jobcentre. What would happen if the person turned the job down because the wages were derisory? Will that be allowed if the job is offered privately, but not if it is offered at the same wages through the jobcentre? We asked the Minister that question in Committee, but there is no record of a reply, let alone one that makes any sense. The only way in which the Minister's proposal would make any kind of sense would be if it were extended to jobs offered through the jobcentre as well as through private agencies. That is the first leg of amendment No. 2.
The second part of amendment No. 2 would allow work expenses explicitly to be taken into account when deciding whether a person had good cause to refuse a job. Again, we discussed that at length in Committee. Although we challenged the Minister about work expenses such as travel and child care costs, and asked whether they would count as good cause for refusing a job on low wages, the Minister seemed to say that he thought that they "ought to" as opposed to "would." Because the provision in the Bill explicitly states that all questions of remuneration are ruled out, that might be taken to override the Minister's comments about what it might he nice to take into account in the way of work expenses. At one point the Minister said:

There is no straightforward answer"—[Official Report, Standing Committee F; 9 February 1989, c. 408.]
about the kind of work expenses that might be taken into account.

Ms. Short: My hon. Friend will recall that there is provision in the Bill for the Government to make regulations allowing them to set minimum pay levels. If the pay for a job was below that, it would be reasonable to turn it down. The Minister explicitly refused to promise to make such regulations, so despite the undertaking to which my hon. Friend refers, unless the Minister changes his mind today he is explicitly ruling out making any regulations to provide for a minimum level of pay.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. She will recall that in Committee some examples were given of levels of pay that we thought most people would consider wholly inadequate. The main reaction to them was to challenge whether jobs with such levels of pay were on offer, not to say that if they were on offer they should not be accepted.
7 pm
Our other reason for raising the issue of work expenses is that, although the Minister discussed the question of travel expenses, he later confirmed that it was travelling time rather than cost that would constitute good cause for refusal. The physical difficulty of a person's taking on a job, rather than his or her travel expenses making the wages wholly unrealistic, would be considered a good cause. Later, however, the Minister once again seemed to suggest that expenses or costs might be taken into account. When my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) pressed the Minister about whether gross or net pay would be considered, the Minister said that he imagined that account would be taken of the take-home pay of the person involved.
One reason why we are determined to make the effort to write into the Bill some specific reference to work expenses, and why we are reluctant to accept that in practice sensible guidelines will be adopted, is the fact that social fund officers are explicitly prevented by the Department's guidelines even from offering loans towards work expenses, and even where the absence of such money means that the job will be lost. That is why amendment No. 2 should commend itself to the House.
Amendment No. 3 prevents people from being forced, under threat of disqualification, to take jobs unsuited to their skills or experience. In Committee, the Minister's remarks showed that he thought that the concept of a suitable job ought to be taken into account, even though he was taking it out of the legislation. Some reference of that kind should be written into the legislation so that in considering good cause, quite apart from the rate of pay, the authorities will have to take suitability into account.
As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will be able to lay down in regulations what is or is not good cause. Those regulations could remove many of the established safeguards in case law on issues such as suitability. If the Government had intended good cause to cover everything except the level of pay, now covered by suitability, there would be no reason not to retain both concepts in the Bill. Therefore, if the Government intend the adjudicating authorities to take into account some concept of suitability, that should be encouraged by some reference in the Bill. That is the purpose of amendment No. 3.
This group of amendments should commend itself to the House. My hon. Friends and I, however, direct our attention particularly to amendment No. 2.

Mr. Kirkwood: I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 110 and 111 that appear in my name, and, mercifully, I can do so briefly. I had in mind two ideas when tabling these amendments. First, I wanted to increase the measure of flexibility available to adjudicating officers and their like when they consider some of the questions contained in clause 9; to acknowledge the difficulty that people with disabilities have in acquiring employment; and to prevent them from being doubly penalised.
Secondly, amendment No. 111 seeks to take account of the needs of professions such as acting. I fully recognise and understand that there was an extensive debate on that in Committee. However, it is right to take a few moments to look again at the difficulties facing those who pursue professions and jobs that are seasonable, may be stop-go and may not fit well into the pattern set out by the Department.
The House will know, and those who were on the Committee will remember that much play was made of the fact, that actors work on a casual basis with short-term contracts and might be required to work for one day at a time. In between those days of work, there may be long gaps which make for an erratic employment pattern. That makes it difficult for them to qualify under the various regulations stipulated by the Bill. The provisions in clause 8 require a claimant to work 13 weeks within a 26-week period in order to requalify for unemployment benefit. That would be a difficult requirement for actors to meet.
Clause 9 says that anyone on the register for three months or more must be prepared to accept any work at any rate. If that policy were ruthlessly pursued, it would have the potential to drive actors out of their profession. I know that Ministers said that they would make some concessions and seemed to be listening to our case in Committee. However, as I understand it, their concessions were in terms of the regulations that were to flow from the primary legislation.
The House would be right to reconsider the opportunity that these clauses provide to make it clear on the face of the Bill—in the primary legislation—that there should be flexibility to protect these two particular categories of unemployment benefit claimants. In addition, the clause as it stands could trap many qualified people, particularly those with disabilities, who may have problems getting a job. Despite their high qualifications, such people may have to accept low-paid and unqualified manual work. In turn, that will prevent those without qualifications from obtaining the lower quality work. That problem may arise if the clauses proceed unamended.
If the Government are setting their face against changing the general thrust of the legislation, we should seek to place on the face of the Bill a guaranteed degree of flexibility so that we do not have to rely on the Minister's statements that the legislation will be implemented with the customary milk of human kindness that we know to be in the forefront of every adjudication officer's mind. Generally, they serve the public well. Certainly, in my own constituency they do their job well and should not be criticised. However, they are under pressure, principally because the legislation that they are tied to implement is

harsh and onerous. It is no fault of theirs that they have to apply it, and if they were given primary legislation that was more flexible at the edges, it would be easier to live with.
It is a mistake for the House to legislate on the basis of ideal people in ideal situations. The real world is not like that but contains many disadvantaged people in difficult and trying circumstances. A bit of discretion and flexibility, such as that contained in the amendments, would improve the legislation. The legislation should not be—as it seems to be—promulgated on the basis that everybody is to be treated as a scrounger. However, we accepted in earlier discussions on other clauses that only a minority of people are work shy. Framing the legislation on the basis of trying to catch them, and catching everybody else in the net as a result, is a silly way to proceed. I hope that the amendments will elicit some new and more progressive thinking and more flexibility from the Minister of State than we received in Committee.

Mr. Battle: Social security legislation is complex. Perhaps in recognition of that, the Department of Social Security has altered the logo—there is now a user-friendly smile—on its press handouts, but the legislation is still confusing.
During discussion of the previous clause, the Minister said that the Bill would not hit single parents with young children, which is manifestly untrue. They will be hit; if they are claiming unemployment benefit they will not be automatically entitled to it—they will have to go through the availability for work test—

Mr. Scott: Surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that people have a choice in this matter. If they are claiming unemployment benefit, they are, by definition, seeking to return to employment. If not, income support is the appropriate benefit for them. The lone parent has a clear choice.

Mr. Battle: The Minister tried to tell the House during discussion of the previous clause that people could not claim and said that single parents with children under 16 would not be affected—but they will be. I accept the point that he has just made, if he will accept that what I say is true in the context of the whole Bill.
Even Conservative Members who sat through the Committee proceedings for months have today repeated again that no one will be asked to accept any rate of pay. That, too, is palpably wrong. The Bill states that they will be asked to accept any rate. If they do not accept a job offered them at an incredibly low rate, they will be taken out of benefit, Conservative Members have repeated this afternoon. This may not be sinking in; many people outside the House do not believe it possible that the Government will force people to accept a job regardless of the pay offered for it.
This clause effectively prices people into work, and that should be plainly spelt out. If nothing else emerges from all the debates on the Bill this should: people must be aware before they sign on that, if they do not take the job they are offered at the price offered, they will not receive benefit.
The last time we debated this in Committee, the Minister challenged the idea that people are offered jobs at low rates. I seem to recall that he asked his civil servants to ring up jobcentres and check the examples that some of us gave of the jobs that were on offer there. I represent Leeds, which was a traditional manufacturing and textile area. The jobs have gone in the manufacturing sector and


been replaced, to some extent, by jobs in the service sector. During that restructuring, there has been a shift in the economy to a two-tier system in which some people—the majority—occupy relatively secure jobs but others have been priced into the temporary, part-time and low-paid sector.
I assure the Minister that I checked only yesterday with the Bramley jobcentre what jobs are on offer to the unemployed in my area. I shall focus on the low-paid jobs. The usual wages for jobs in the centre this week are £120 to £130 a week. That is well below the Council of Europe decency threshold, which the Government refuse to acknowledge, and well below the average wage in Britain, which now stands at £258 a week. Most of my constituents earn much less than the average wage. Perhaps the reason why the average wage is so high has something to do with the Financial Times report this week that directors and managers have had a 26 per cent. wage increase as a result of the tax cuts in last year's Budget. Perhaps they are pulling up the average wage. People at the bottom of the scale are certainly not earning high wages.
7.15 pm
In Bramley jobcentre, a semi-skilled lathe operator is offered £95 for a full week's work. A junior storekeeper will get £45 a week. A security guard—another job in the service sector—working 12-hour shifts and needing at least three months background in security before being able to apply gets £1.80 an hour. A presser, a job in what is left of the textile industry, is paid £2.1075 an hour, whatever that means. A machinist is offered £2.10 an hour.
A wages council deals with the wages in the clothing and textile industries and sets the minimum wage at £1.90. So these jobs are offered at 10p or 20p above the minimum. The Government propose to remove the wages council, thereby removing the minimum rate. Wage rates will then fall and people will discover that they are being offered even less.
In Committee, Conservative Members were sent a guide to the Bill by the Conservative party press department. It said that the purpose of the Bill was to
ease the rigidities of the labour market".
The notes on clauses explain what that means:
the level of remuneration will not be a just cause for turning down a job offer".
I hope that people are now sure what that means. It means that people will be forced to accept the lowest-paid jobs. The Government are deliberately manufacturing low pay by means of this Bill, and reinforcing the low-wage economy.
As for work expenses, a person in my constituency was referred to an employment agency, which advised him to go to the parts of the country in which there were jobs. He paid the bus fare to Harrogate, where he was referred to a construction site. At the site, he was told that there were no jobs, and the manager could not imagine why the employment agency had sent him along. He returned to the employment agency to ask where the advertisement had been seen, only to be told that the agency did not go by advertisements but sent people to areas where developments were taking place to see whether they could find a job. Conservative Members who vote against our amendment will be telling people like my constituent that, having paid the bus fare to go to Harrogate for a job, they will not get the money back. They will lose out because they have tried to find jobs and have been misled by employment agencies.
I hope that, at this late stage, the Government will tell people that this measure is designed to price them into work, and that they can be sent anywhere to find work, with no compensation or assistance. That will be profoundly unjust for the unemployed. It will not be easy for the Government to sell this measure with a smile and to pretend that it is part of a social security policy. It is part of a policy to price people into work. That is part of the Government's employment strategy and it has nothing to do with protecting people whose incomes are at the bottom of the scale.

Mr. David Winnick: I want briefly to support the amendments. There is already enough pressure on the unemployed to take jobs which are often unsuitable and badly paid.
Some of my constituents have brought their cases to my attention and, as is to be expected, I have taken them up with the local agencies. Inevitably, I have been informed of the regulations which the agencies are responsible for implementing locally. I know that some Conservative Members believe that the unemployed should take any job regardless of circumstances, conditions and pay. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) nodded in approval when that point was made earlier. We do not take that view. We work on the assumption that the overwhelming majority of the unemployed want to work. We do not accept for one moment the notion that they are workshy, or that they find any excuse not to take employment. In any country, a small number will behave like that, but they are wholly unrepresentative of most of the unemployed.
Being unemployed, if only Conservative Members and Ministers could understand it, does not just mean having nowhere near enough income. That is bad enough, and it is worse if a person has family responsibilities. There is a psychological factor as well.
Until very recently in the west midlands, there was a great deal of unemployment. In some parts of the region unemployment remains substantially high. But even in those circumstances, when a person could say that unemployment was not his fault and that others were in the same position, the unemployed did not feel like that. Instead, so many felt a sense of personal failure. They felt inadequate. Those in their 40s and 50s, with a lifetime of work behind them, felt that they had failed, and there was always the great worry about whether they would be able to work again. Those are all important and relevant factors when we are discussing legislation affecting those who are unfortunately without work.
I understand that, in Committee, the Minister said that someone who turned down a job that had been offered to him privately at a derisory wage would not be disqualified from unemployment benefit. A person therefore offered a job with inadequate wage outside the jobcentre would not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit. The Minister may have changed his position. No doubt he will tell us the current position when he replies. However, if that remains the position—I shall be pleased if it does—is there not a contradiction between that and a person being offered a job at a derisory wage by a jobcentre? I hope that the Minister will answer those points.
Pay is certainly important. Why should a person who has been earning a reasonable sum of money accept any job at a derisory wage? A person may well take the view that he will not be able to earn as much as he did previously. He may well take the view that he will not be


able to work in precisely the same kind of occupation that he did previously. But that does not necessarily mean that he should take any type of job at a menial wage on which he cannot support his family. It is unthinkable that a person to whom a job is offered should not be able to take into consideration the pay that goes with it.

Ms. Short: There is another point. People seeking full-time employment may be forced to take part-time employment. The Government realised that, under the Bill, people could be forced to take fewer than 25 hours' work a week and thus not be entitled to family credit, so they said that they would change that. But anyone seeking full-time work can be forced into a job with as little as 25 hours' work a week at any rate of pay.

Mr. Winnick: I agree: my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I do not know whether Conservative Members are worried about this, but the nub of our argument is that it is wrong and inappropriate in every possible way that pay should not be a factor when a person decides whether to take a particular job. Our amendment will inevitably be Defeated—the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) nods in agreement—and that will mean that the unemployed will be in the position that we have been describing. They will not be able to take into consideration pay that is inadequate and on which they cannot support their family.
That is wrong. No Conservative Member would want to be in that position, so why should other members of the community? Conservative Members would not like to be unemployed and be told that they must take a job however low the pay is, so why should our constituents be penalised in that fashion?

Mr. Wigley: I may not have followed fully what the hon. Gentleman said, but may people be forced into jobs with low hours and low wages, and so be below the threshold for national insurance payments, thus being in danger of missing out there as well?

Mr. Winnick: That may well be so.
Just to widen the debate a little—if I am out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will correct me—I am opposed to changing Sunday trading hours not just on religious grounds—we respect those with a religious point of view on that issue—but because people may be forced to work on a Sunday for low pay. I am all the more determined to oppose any change in the Sunday trading law after this legislation. However, I shall not pursue that point.
The Bill is a direct incentive to employers to pay disgracefully low wages. It helps those employers who could not care less about paying their employees adequately. Employers will in many cases take the view that the unemployed can be forced to take jobs with wages on which no one could support a family. This legislation is a direct incentive for the worst kind of employer. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) is muttering, but whatever it is I doubt whether it was sympathetic to my point.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that a person who, in the circumstances that he describes, takes a relatively low-paid

or part-time job would have his family income made up with family credit. These days, people earning in excess of £9,000 a year qualify for that extra benefit.

Mr. Winnick: That is all very patronising. First, if such people had no young dependants, that would not apply. Secondly, the hon. Lady is saying that those employers who pay disgracefully low wages should be subsidised by the rest of the community. That shows what modern day Toryism has come to.
The amendments would help to modify a bad Bill. They would give the unemployed some sort of protection. The amendments are justified and though they will be defeated we shall carry on the argument in the country.

Mr. Bob Clay: My constituency and the Sunderland area are concentrated microcosms of the reality that my hon. Friends the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) have been describing.
For some time the Government have been pursuing the dual strategy of trying to make the real unemployment that exists in our society disappear from the statistics and neatly aiding the most unscrupulous employers. Those two objectives fit together like a hand in a glove and the clause will make matters even worse.
Since December, Sunderland shipyards have been running down as a result of the Government's disgraceful and vindictive decision to close them, and 2,000 workers have been made redundant. The Government pretend that the situation is not as bad as it seems. There has been much propaganda claiming that one third of North East Shipbuilders' employees have already found other jobs. That is not true, but even if it were, it is extraordinary that the Government should think that it is all right for two thirds to remain unemployed.
When we examine the claim that one third of those workers have been re-employed, we learn a great deal about why we need the amendments that we are debating. Three welders were sent by the jobcentre to Hull, over 100 miles from Sunderland, to do some welding work on a refrigerated cargo ship which had been sitting in the dock for weeks on end. When they arrived on the job they discovered that the hold had not been cleaned and that it was coated with rotting fish. Those welders were just told, "Clean it yourselves and get on with the job." And they did that for a derisory wage. After three days, they had finished the job and were back on the dole, but I guarantee that when the Sunderland jobcentre issues figures showing how many NES people have been re-employed since being made redundant, they will be included. I suspect, indeed, that if they are sent to another rotten job for a couple of days next week they will be counted yet again—the same people.
7.30 pm
Then we have the sort of situation that I mentioned in a previous debate, and on which I want to dwell a little tonight. An unscrupulous ship repair employer on Teesside sends a bus to Sunderland, more than 30 miles away. Forty men are sent by the jobcentre to stand in the road at 5 o'clock in the morning, waiting to go to temporary employment in the ship repair yard on Teesside. The princely sum of £127 per week is offered to highly skilled workers. No travelling expenses or meal allowances are provided. When the bus pulls up, the foreman gets off and says, "I want five burners this


morning. The rest of you can go home." That happens day in and day out. If someone says, "I am not prepared to go and stand there, like an animal in the market, at 5 o'clock in the morning, to be insulted like that," his benefit is stopped because he is deemed to be unavailable for work. That is the reality of Thatcher's Britain.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is precisely the sort of situation that existed in the docks in the days before the dock labour scheme. The tally man would come along and chuck in the buttons, and the men would all fight to see who would get the jobs. The purpose of the proposal to scrap the dock labour scheme is precisely to get back to that situation.

Mr. Clay: I would love to develop that point, but I suspect that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not allow me to do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, I would not.

Mr. Clay: In passing, however, I can assure my hon. Friend that shipyard workers in Sunderland understand very well the opposition to the abolition to the dock labour scheme.
Let me return to the question of availability for work and of unscrupulous employers. People who are, as it were, successfully employed, even on a temporary basis, are suddenly told that there is to be a four-hour overtime shift, five days a week. It is not compulsory, but the bus does not leave until after the overtime period. By the way, no premium rate is paid—it is flat rate. That is the type of employer involved. Of course, those men who are not fortunate enough to have their own cars know that it would take longer to get home by public transport than it would if they actually worked the overtime—the non-compulsory four-hour shift—and took the workers' bus. Tricks of that sort are being played by employers, who know that they have this legislation behind them and that people are in terror of having their benefit stopped.
It is absurd for the Government to claim that, effectively, people are pricing themselves out of work. A skilled shipyard worker who asks for £167 a week—that was the skilled rate in British shipbuilding last year, before there was any pay rise—is not pricing himself out of a job. It is quite disgraceful that skilled people are having their benefit stopped because they are asking for that rate of pay.
I want to draw attention to the other side of the coin in respect of these employers whom the Government are aiding. The employer that I mentioned—and there are many more like him—apart from the temporary work for three or four days a week, and even permanent low-paid employment for a handful of people, has some very short-term and temporary requirements. Four weeks ago, representatives of that employer were in the last remaining working part of the Sunderland shipyard—in the outfitting facility at North Sands—on a Friday afternoon. They were trespassing. Without management permission, they were circulating among the handful of workers still there waiting to be made redundant. They were saying, "We have a quick job on, over the weekend, down in Teesside. For anyone who wants to come, there is £100 in your hand. No questions asked. Work right through the weekend. You might actually have to work overnight, 24 hours round the clock, but there is 100 in your hand. Bring the gear with you." That is incitement to theft of

British Shipbuilders' equipment, and blatant fraud in the sense of breach of tax and national insurance laws. This is the employer who is also indulging in the practices that I described earlier. Life will be so much better for him if the amendments that we are discussing are defeated. He will be able to abuse the system even more.
I want to end on a point that I think is relevant to our discussion. More than a year ago I reported an employer for inducing people to work while claiming benefit. I was told by the Department of Employment that there was not enough evidence. Obviously, the employees involved were reluctant to be prosecuted. I asked if they could be given an amnesty, in which case they would give names and addresses and testify. For some reason an amnesty was not available. However, the employees gave the evidence anyway, and the Department of Employment had it for more than a year. Indeed, the regional fraud squad and the Department of Social Security were also in possession of it. After endless correspondence with the Department, I received last week a letter saying that that employer would not be prosecuted.
A few weeks ago I tabled a parliamentary question asking how many employers had been prosecuted for breach of the social security regulations. According to the answer, in the last two years two people in the whole of Britain—one in Kent and one in Wales—have been prosecuted. A Government who can produce this Bill and reject amendments that would inject a scintilla of dignity into the process and give employees and the unemployed some fairly marginal protection in respect of their benefits, are quite happy to allow the unscrupulous, cowboy, criminal employers of Britain, who are defrauding the tax and social security systems, free licence.

Mr. Tony Banks: Does not anyone on the Conservative benches wish to speak?

Mr. Winnick: Will no one defend the Government?

Mr. Scott: I apologise for the delay—I was expecting the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to contribute to the debate.
I wish to explain briefly why it is impossible for me to commend these amendments to the House. I shall then refer to Government amendment No. 99. I do not think that there will be much surprise at our rejection of amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Indeed, the Opposition clearly expected me to advise the House to reject the amendments and that that would be the outcome of the Division. The first part of amendment No. 2 is an attempt to maintain the status quo and the concept of suitable employment. We had considerable discussion about this when the Bill was in Committee. In essence, the current situation is that the unemployed person may not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit if he turns down, or fails to follow up, an opportunity for employment that is not suitable. At present, the consideration of suitability includes consideration of the concept of what I might term the going rate of pay. If the job is not suitable, even in that respect, it can be turned down without incurring disqualification for benefit.
One very undesirable effect of that provision is that it takes no account of the individual's ability to command a particular wage. We should consider whether it is right to ask an employer to pay exactly the same rate—the going rate—to a person who has recently moved from one job to another, and whose skills are still at a high level, and to a


person who may have been out of work for a considerable time and require an element, or even a considerable amount, of retraining to get back to the level of skill of the rest of the employees. I believe that the employer should have the right to take into account the ability, skills and experience of potential recruits in deciding what pay to offer. The concept of the going rate is outmoded, but I understand why the Opposition cling to it.
Nevertheless, we understand that when people are seeking work in the immediate aftermath of unemployment, a period ought to be allowed during which they can look for work in the field in which they worked before and at a level of pay similar to that which they previously enjoyed. That is why the Bill allows for a permitted period. When an unemployed person first visits the unemployment office, the new claimant adviser will give an indication of the length of the permitted period—a maximum of 13 weeks is allowed. The claimant will know that for the term of that permitted period he will be at risk of being disqualified only if he turns down jobs in the same field as his previous employment and offering the level of remuneration that he previously enjoyed.
In the course of such interviews staff will of course be anxious to obtain as much detailed information as they can about the experience, skills and qualifications, as well as the personal circumstances, of the individual concerned. That will enable the employment service to identify appropriate vacancies and to discuss them with the individual. If a person refuses even to be interviewed for a job offered during the permitted period, or fails to turn up, his benefit is likely to be at risk. However, such decisions are taken by adjudication officers, who will have to judge and weigh the merits of individual cases.
In offering a job to any person, the employment service will act in good faith and will establish as far as possible that the job is within the skills and capabilities of the individual concerned. The service will try to offer a vacancy with conditions generally within the range of what is representative of the local labour market in the occupation concerned. However, the service will not necessarily restrict itself only to vacancies advised by employers but will use its own wit and wisdom, and its knowledge of the local labour market, in canvassing other vacancies. Employment service staff will also be at pains to ensure that those seeking employment are advised about any in-work benefits that may be available. Those will depend on the individual's personal circumstances. The leaflet, "How To Be Better Off At Work" will be topped up by specific, detailed personal assessments of the in-work benefits and income available.
The second part of amendment No. 2 seeks to incorporate in primary legislation a requirement that, in considering whether a person has good cause for rejecting a particular vacancy, adjudication officers should take work-related expenses into account. I cannot accept the amendment as drafted, but I believe that certain work-related expenses ought to be taken into account and, as I said in Committee, proper regard will be paid to that point. It is not a straightforward matter and requires careful consideration, but I give the House an undertaking that we shall introduce regulations which will be a more appropriate vehicle, taking account of that aspect.
I do not intend to include child care costs. I know that there is a debate about that. Some people hold the view that child care costs should be included in the calculation, and I understand those feelings. However, lone parents, for whom such costs are likely to be the greatest burden, are not required to be available for work to qualify for income support. Others having high child care costs are probably second earners, and they are in a different category. I suspect that that argument will continue as we consider ways of encouraging people back into employment. The employment situation is growing tighter and tighter. That argument will not go away, but I am unable to accept it, and a provision for child care costs will not be included in the regulations that will be introduced in due course.
7.45 pm
Amendment No. 3 attempts to introduce in primary legislation the concept that a person cannot be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefit if he refuses to seek or accept employment that is
unsuited to his skills or experience.
Clause 9 already acknowledges that skills and experience are important, which is why we provide the permitted period, but it would not be right to include a longer-term provision in the legislation. Once a person has exhausted his permitted period, he ought to be expected to widen the scope of his job search activities and to contemplate employment outside those areas for which his skills and experience are best fitted.
In Committee, there was general agreement that the longer a person is unemployed, the more difficult that person finds it to get back into work. The very fact that a person has been unemployed leads some employers to regard him as being less employable, if not unemployable. Even if a person finds employment in a field that is not his usual one, his chances of reverting to his usual trade and making full use of his experience and skills is improved.
It would be a retrograde step to accept amendment No. 3, which would enable and encourage the unemployed unduly to restrict for a prolonged period the work that they are prepared to consider. That is not consistent with our desire to ensure that people are encouraged to make sensible use of all avenues in pursuing all the opportunities that become available. The employment service will, of course, take account of a person's skills and experience and attempt to find him an appropriate job. Where that cannot be done, it is right to take a wider approach.
Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) are both wide-ranging. Amendment No. 110 places an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations for prescribing matters and circumstances which should be taken into account by the adjudication authorities in determining whether a person has good cause for turning down or failing to follow up an employment opportunity. I am not unsympathetic to setting out in regulations rather than in primary legislation as much guidance for adjudication authorities as possible. They must have a certain amount of discrimination—that is inherent in their work as an independent authority—but the more guidance we can give them in arriving at such decisions the better.
We shall use the powers in the Bill, but we do not intend to produce an exhaustive list of considerations because we want adjudication offices to be left with some power to take account of matters and circumstances that they


consider relevant in particular individual circumstances. The considerations that we shall specify by regulation will include whether the employment in question is likely to subject the claimant to unreasonable physical or mental stress, which will allow account to be taken of the individual's physical and mental capacity; whether it would conflict with a sincerely held religious or conscientious objection; whether the claimant's domestic responsibilities would make it physically difficult for him to undertake the employment; and whether the travelling time involved in reaching the place of employment would be excessive. As I indicated in Committee, we intend providing for travelling of less than one hour in each direction, unless even that is unreasonable due to a health factor. Also considered will be whether the expenses necessary to undertake the employment, excluding child care expenses, would absorb an unduly high proportion of earnings. Those are the kind of considerations that we hope to cover in regulations, and I trust that they will give a steer to adjudication authorities that will prove helpful overall.
Amendment No. 111 seeks to provide that regulations will take into account.
patterns of employment associated with particular professions.
I thought that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West would intervene on that point, but I know that he has been in correspondence with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. In essence, I am reluctant to move to a situation in which particular professions are plucked out and entirely different arrangements made for them. I know that my hon. Friend is anxious to be as helpful as possible to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and to the representatives of Equity who recently met him.

Mr. Tony Banks: I did not intervene earlier because I did not wish so to inflame the Minister as to set at naught the progress that we have made so far. I am obliged to the Minister for what he has done so far, but the case presented by British Actors Equity clearly reveals acting as a profession, and actors as a body of workers who are particularly affected. I believe that the Government ought to make an exception for them.

Mr. Scott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is anxious to be as helpful as he possibly can. Amendment No. 111, another wide-ranging amendment, attempts to empower the adjudication officer to override any provision or alteration made in clause 7, 8 or 9 by enabling him to take into account any pattern of employment associated with particular professions. That was the main point raised by Actors Equity.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am sure that the Minister has the interests of the profession at heart, but it would be helpful if he could sketch some of the progress, if any, made in negotiations between the Under-Secretary of State and the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).

Mr. Scott: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would have a word with my hon. Friend at the end of the debate as he has had meetings with the hon. Member for Newham, North-West and with representatives of Actors Equity.
Government amendment No. 99 in no way alters the policy on permitted periods. It states more clearly on the

face of the Bill precisely what the intentions are. A decision on a person's permitted period will be made by adjudication officers. Such a decision could be relevant only when a person has turned down a job and faces the possibility of disqualification under section 20. We thought it right to clarify the situation in primary legislation.
The amendment seeks to provide that adjudication will not be necessary at the beginning of every claim. Informal advice will be given to a claimant about what his permitted period is likely to be. If a doubt then arises, the adjudication officer will make a formal decision on the permitted period, but it would never be shorter than the period of which the claimant was advised in the beginning and in certain circumstances it might turn out to be longer. Individuals will know for how long they can safely hold out in an attempt to get jobs in their usual occupations by resting on the advice of the employment service as given at the beginning. That is a helpful amendment which clarifies the Government's intention. I ask the House to accept it and to reject the other amendments.

Mrs. Beckett: I take the Minister's point on amendment 99 about the preference for giving informal advice about the permitted period. I am glad to hear him reiterate what he wrote in a letter to me—that the adjudication officer's ruling would never be for a shorter period than initially advised. As that is not stated in the proposed amendment, I presume that the Minister is indicating that it will be included in the regulations. He nods, so I am pleased to have that confirmation.
Perhaps the Minister might wish to consider later that it might be useful for the individual to have the right to ask for a formal decision by the adjudicating officer on the length of the period of disqualification; he should not: be left in limbo, particularly if he is not happy with the initial advice given on the length of the permitted period. He should have the right to go to the adjudicating officer at any stage to ask for a formal ruling on the permitted period. He would then know where he stood, and would not possibly risk disqualification if he thought that the original ruling was so unreasonable that no one could really have meant it.
We believe that three months should be the minimum length of the permitted period rather than the maximum length, because in many cases it seems to be too short a time.
We are trying to find ways of improving clause 9, particularly as it removes all considerations not only of the way the skill or experience of people should be taken into account in deciding whether a job offer is suitable, but especially of levels of pay.
The Minister adopted the sort of sympathetic manner that he no doubt hopes the adjudication officers will adopt with claimants. No doubt anyone listening only to the Minister would think that the Government were putting a reasonable case. Fortunately we have also heard hon. Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), and for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle). They spoke of the harsh and dark reality of the wage levels and conditions of work that people are now under pressure to accept in the present labour market. Particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North identified the


terrible pressure brought to bear now on unemployed people and how that pressure is likely to be exacerbated out of all recognition by the Bill.
The Minister said that people should be expected, after a period of unemployment, to widen their job scope. As with clause 7, Labour Members recognise that people should be, and under current legislation are, expected to widen the scope of their job search. The Minister said that he realises that a period of unemployment leads some employers to regard people as less employable, but nothing is being done in the Bill about that attitude. Only the unemployed are having their behaviour modified, not those who might be able to offer people work.
I believe that the case put by my hon. Friends reflects more accurately the reality of the labour market and also the terrible condition into which we believe it is likely to sink if this legislation is passed. I intend to advise my hon. Friends to press amendment No. 2 and, in those circumstances, to withdraw amendment 116.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 2, in page 6, line 31, at end insert
`other than—

(a) whether the level of remuneration is reasonable for that employment, or
(b) any expense that the person would be likely to incur in connection with that employment.'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 280.

Division No. 178]
[7.57 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tam


Armstrong, Hilary
Darling, Alistair


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dobson, Frank


Barron, Kevin
Doran, Frank


Battle, John
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beckett, Margaret
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eadie, Alexander


Bidwell, Sydney
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bradley, Keith
Faulds, Andrew


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flannery, Martin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Flynn, Paul


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Buckley, George J.
Foster, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Jim
Fraser, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
George, Bruce


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clay, Bob
Gordon, Mildred


Cohen, Harry
Gould, Bryan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Graham, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cousins, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Crowther, Stan
Grocott, Bruce


Cryer, Bob
Hardy, Peter


Cummings, John
Henderson, Doug


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hinchliffe, David


Cunningham, Dr John
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)





Holland, Stuart
Murphy, Paul


Home Robertson, John
Nellist, Dave


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William


Howells, Geraint
O'Neill, Martin


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoyle, Doug
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Illsley, Eric
Prescott, John


Ingram, Adam
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Robertson, George


Kennedy, Charles
Rogers, Allan


Kilfedder, James
Rooker, Jeff


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ruddock, Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Lamond, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Leadbitter, Ted
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lewis, Terry
Short, Clare


Livsey, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


Macdonald, Calum A.
Steel, Rt Hon David


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Steinberg, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Vaz, Keith


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wall, Pat


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Joan


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Wareing, Robert N.


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Michael, Alun
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wray, Jimmy


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Mullin, Chris
Mrs. Llin Golding.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bowis, John


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Allason, Rupert
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Amos, Alan
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashby, David
Budgen, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Chris


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carrington, Matthew


Benyon, W.
Carttiss, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Chapman, Sydney


Body, Sir Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Boswell, Tim
Colvin, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Conway, Derek


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Cope, Rt Hon John






Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dicks, Terry
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Knox, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dover, Den
Lang, Ian


Dunn, Bob
Latham, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Ivan


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Evennett, David
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fallon, Michael
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lord, Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fishburn, John Dudley
McCrindle, Robert


Fookes, Dame Janet
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forman, Nigel
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclean, David


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Franks, Cecil
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maples, John


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Marlow, Tony


Goodlad, Alastair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maude, Hon Francis


Gorst, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mellor, David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Miller, Sir Hal


Gregory, Conal
Mills, Iain


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Ground, Patrick
Monro, Sir Hector


Hague, William
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hannam, John
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hill, James
Norris, Steve


Hind, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Phillip


Holt, Richard
Paice, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howard, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David


Hunter, Andrew
Raffan, Keith


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irving, Charles
Redwood, John


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas





Ridsdale, Sir Julianq
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Rost, Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ryder, Richard
Thornton, Malcolm


Sackville, Hon Tom
Thurnham, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Scott, Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trippier, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Trotter, Neville


Shelton, Sir William
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walden, George


Shersby, Michael
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sims, Roger
Walters, Sir Dennis


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Ward, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Watts, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wheeler, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitney, Ray


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Steen, Anthony
Wilshire, David


Stern, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Stevens, Lewis
Wood, Timothy


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Woodcock, Mike


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Yeo, Tim


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Younger, Rt Hon George


Sumberg, David



Summerson, Hugo
Tellers for the Noes:


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Mr. Tony Durant and


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment made: No. 99, in page 7, line 9, leave out from 'means' to end of line 13 and insert
`in relation to any person, such period, whether expired or not, as may be determined in accordance with regulations by an adjudication officer on the submission of the question whether that person is disqualified under section 20 above for receiving unemployment benefit; and any such regulations may prescribe—

(a) the day on which any such period shall be regarded as having commenced in any case;'.—[Mr. Scott.]

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 40, at end insert—
`(7) In section 97(1C) of the principal Act, at the end there shall be added the words "and, in particular, on the determination of the period for which a person is to be disqualified, under section 20(1) above for receiving unemployment benefit".'.
I shall move the amendment with extreme brevity in view of the constraints on time.
In Committee, we discussed the unfettered discretion that adjudication officers have to impose a period of disqualification which can range from one week to 26 weeks. We pointed out to the Minister that there is substantial evidence that adjudication offices automatically imposed the maximum period of disqualification when it was six weeks, continued to do so when it was 13 weeks and still impose it automatically now that it is 26 weeks. Although there must be some, I have never come across a case in which anyone was disqualified from the benefit for less than 26 weeks. Before the Minister says that those are the people who write to Members of Parliament, the same decision continues to apply to people who have been told that their disqualification is being called in question and have not received a formal decision as to the period of disqualification. But invariably the formal disqualification is for the full 26 weeks.
The Minister said that advice might be given by the chief adjudication officer or that commissioners' decisions should provide guidance on what consideration should be


given to the period of disqualification. However, the commissioners have said that, because of the way in which the legislation is drafted, they can give no real guidance, and the chief adjudication officer in his annual report complained about his inability to offer guidance. Therefore, it is clear that no guidance will be offered, although the chief adjudication officer has said how difficult it is for adjudication officers to exercise that discretion.
The amendment seeks to give the chief adjudication officer the power he wants to give more detailed advice on the subject. I commend the amendment to the Minister. Although I do not expect him to accept it tonight, it deals with an issue which he should seriously consider.

Mr. Scott: I recognise that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has raised an important point, but amendment No. 4 is unnecessary because there is a general duty on the chief adjudication officer to provide advice and guidance. However, as we all know, adjudication officers have unfettered judgment in these matters.
Despite what the hon. Lady said, I accept that she was conveying the facts to me as they were presented to her. I have no reason to believe that adjudication officers are not imposing disqualification periods to reflect the merits of any particular case. When we extended the maximum period of disqualification from 13 to 26 weeks last year, we made it clear that we would wish to ascertain what effect that change had on the amounts of benefit claimants lost and on the behaviour of claimants. We set up arrangements to study the impact of the change.
During the past three months, we have carried out a survey which will provide information on the numbers and lengths of disqualifications imposed nationally and regionally. The results of that survey are being analysed. We also commissioned an independent agency, Social and Community Planning Research, to explore the impact of the change on decisions about leaving or taking work, as well as on the circumstances of those who are disqualified. I expect the results of both of the surveys to be available in the summer. Of course, they will be published and that will be the appropriate time for us to consider the matter.

Ms. Short: If the results of the survey show that almost universally people are disqualified for 26 weeks, which is an incredibly long period, and even the Government are persuaded that the hardship is too great, what action does the Minister propose to take? What is the point of the survey? What will he do if the results are bad?

Mr. Scott: However charmingly the hon. Lady presents it, I am certainly not going to be drawn into answering a hypothetical question. Let us establish the facts and then decide on the appropriate action.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the Minister has answered the matter fairly. The chief adjudication officer said that legal advice confirms that he is unable to do more than guide adjudication officers on their general approach. However, I am quite confident that, unless the Minister is prepared to take some action, the issue will come up again. So that we can make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 10

INCOME SUPPORT AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Paul Flynn: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 7, line 45 after 'and', insert
',unless he is responsible for and a member of the same household as a child,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 113, in page 8, line 4, at end add
`bearing in mind any limitations that may be imposed on a person by virtue of any physical, sensory or mental impairment'.

Mr. Flynn: The amendment strikes at the squalid heart of the Bill because clause 10 harbours outrageous new powers. Part of the new parrot cry of the Conservative party is its claim that it wants to make parents accountable for the crimes of their children, but clause 10 will chastise children for the faults of their parents. It is malevolent because it will deprive people of their only source of income. It sinks to new depths of incompetence, indifference and spite.
It has always been recognised that unemployment entitlement must be subject to certain conditions designed to show that the claimant has not become or remains unemployed through his or her deliberate action. That is understood and recognised by both sides of the House, but it has also been recognised that disqualification from unemployment benefit on those grounds should have some effect on entitlement to a minimum income under the means-tested fallback scheme—previously supplementary benefit and now income support.
Under the present rules, a person who leaves a job voluntarily without just cause or who refuses an offer of suitable employment loses all entitlement to employment benefit for up to 26 weeks—in most cases, it is a minimum of 26 weeks—but he or she can still claim income support, although not at the full rate, and subject to a reduction of 40 per cent. of the rate for a single person. That is accepted as a harsh, if not a punitive, disincentive for anyone to claim benefit when he is not available for work.
Many people would argue that the 40 per cent. reduction is excessive, especially when it is applied, as it usually is, for as far as we know, no one has ever suggested that it should be increased to a 100 per cent. reduction, leaving the claimant with no income to provide for his own needs and those of his family. That extreme penalty is imposed only when someone is claiming income support as an unemployed person and is judged not to be available for work at all and is not really unemployed. Clause 10 will extend that 100 per cent. penalty and the judgment of total destitution to people who are available for work but who have failed to satisfy a fairly junior civil servant that they have maintained an active search for jobs for at least 50 weeks of the year.
We are giving an extraordinary new power to junior civil servants to set up kangaroo courts in which they will detect offences, carry out interrogations and then preside, as judge and jury, over the case—subject to appeal. Even if one accepts that such an offence should be punishable by law, the penalty is wholly disproportionate. Twenty-six weeks'—a half year's—salary plus possible benefits for children is a formidable fine for any offence. The only safeguard against the worst effects of that massive penalty is a little-known, little-used and gossamer-weak provision


in the regulations, which provides that a person who is not available for work can nevertheless receive benefit if the claimant or a member of his family would otherwise suffer hardship.
The Minister has said that the provision might be extended to cover people not actively seeking employment, but the concept of a civil servant being able to cut off a person's sole source of income without inevitably causing hardship is nonsense. I accept that it is possible for that to happen in some rare cases where vast savings are available to fall back on. But it is nonsense to apply that to single claimants and arrant nonsense for those with families to support.
Amendment No. 5 concentrates on the threat posed by clause 10 to the families of unemployed people with dependent children. It does not wholly represent our views. We would like to get rid of clause 10 altogether, but, being practical people, we believe that the amendment is an attainable and reasonable end, even in terms of the way in which the Government see the Bill.
The case for exempting families with children from the effects of clause 10 is overwhelming. Even if it were right to punish an unemployed person for failure to take active steps for 50 weeks a year to search for work, it cannot be right to punish that person's children. The principle that children should not suffer for the sins—or imagined sins—of their parents is recognised in the rules relating to strikers' families. Those rules themselves have been changed disgracefully in recent years, imposing savage reductions in the benefits available for strikers' families, but even the present Government have not dared to withdraw those benefits altogether.
The effect of amendment No. 5 would not be to exempt people with children from the actively seeking employment test. They would still stand to lose entitlement to unemployment benefit. The amendment would mean that such people would be able to claim income support, and to receive it, if they could show that they were available for work. If a person refused a job without due cause, his income support would be subject to the usual stringent 40 per cent. reduction for voluntary unemployment. It cannot be argued that the amendment would open the floodgates to abuse. It would merely prevent the actively seeking work test from condemning children to utter destitution.

Mr. Kirkwood: I want to speak briefly on the effect that the Bill, as presently drafted, would have on those who are disabled. Amendment No. 113 seeks to insert the words:
bearing in mind any limitations that may be imposed on a person by virtue of any physical, sensory or mental impairment.
That is an attempt to ensure that disability is taken into account in the actively seeking work test. We had important discussions on that in Committee. Some assurances were given, but only in relation to the prospective total exemption of disabled people from passing some of the tests to prove that they were actively seeking work.
Amendment No. 113 takes a slightly different tack and seeks to mitigate the test that will be applied to disabled people. That is important because we still do not know, with any certainty, just how active a person will have to be to prove that he is seeking employment. Against that background, it is right that we should consider the problems that disabled people may face. The regulations may, for example, require the person to accomplish tasks that are beyond his physical or other capacities as a result

of disability. I am sure that the House agrees that it would be wrong to refuse benefit to disabled persons by virtue of their special behaviour in seeking work. They may not match the behaviour prescribed because they are suffering from disabilities.
Some of the problems were described in Committee. Difficulties would inevitably be experienced by people who are bound to spend their lives in wheelchairs. It would be unfair if there were requirements that necessitated them having access to places of work and methods of transport that were difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate in wheelchairs. It would be similarly unfair to require people to search out job opportunities by telephone or other means if they were deaf or blind, or had difficulty in writing and consequently needed help from someone without such impairments, who might not be available when required. Expecting someone to call regularly at a jobcentre where there may be no accessible transport is similarly unfair.
We received some assurances from the Minister that exemptions would be considered. The amendment seeks to improve the position by requiring some account to be taken of disability in the actively seeking work test. I hope that the Minister has had a chance to study our discussions in Committee and that he will be able to make some positive comments this evening.

Mr. Tony Banks: If someone is ruled to be not actively seeking work, will he lose his entitlement to all benefits unless he can demonstrate hardship? As the Minister knows, I was a member of the Standing Committee for a while until I was transferred to another Bill, so I was not present when clause 10 was debated. It seems outrageous that, if someone is ruled not to be actively seeking work, he could lose his right to all benefits unless he could prove hardship. Once again, humiliation is being heaped on people. Amendment No. 5 seeks to establish that, if somebody has family commitments, he will not have to demonstrate hardship. It will be immediately accepted, and the person will at least receive the 60 per cent.
I find it strange that two otherwise seemingly decent Ministers—I have described them as such several times, but I do not know whether they are deceiving me or whether I am being overly charitable—could allow such a situation to occur. At this stage, I assume that I am misreading the Bill and that that will not be the situation. I cannot believe that the Minister would allow someone to lose his benefit unless he could prove hardship and that he would be required to do so under the circumstances that we know exist, when people have to lay bare their private lives. I am assuming that the Minister will tell me that I am wrong, but if I am right I am assuming that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Mr. Scott: I want to make it clear first that, whatever view the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may take of my attitude, the situation now is no different from the situation that existed under previous Governments, including Labour Governments. It has always been clear that one's entitlement to what in those days was supplementary benefit was affected if one was not available for work. There was a reduction of 40 per cent. or in certain circumstances 20 per cent. in the personal rate


of the individual who was not satisfying the available for work test, which is now changed to the actively seeking work test.
Of course, the allowances paid for dependants of the family would not be affected. There is nothing new in that. There is also a provision in the income support legislation that claimants can receive benefit without having to be available for work if they are lone parents, or if they are looking after a child because the responsible adult is ill or temporarily absent from home, or looking after a member of the family who is temporarily ill. All those groups would be exempt from the requirement to be actively seeking work.
It seems bizarre to suggest that a couple with children should both be exempt from the need actively to be seeking work. If one tried to think of circumstances in which a family should be encouraged to provide income from employment, it would be where young children are in the household. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West considerably overstated things when he said that all the benefit will be taken away. If the benefit comprised the only resources available to the family, which is what the hon. Gentleman was predicating, it would obviously be difficult to pretend that there would not be hardship. Therefore, the hardship provision would come into effect and the benefit would be paid—and be reduced by either 20 per cent. or 40 per cent.—to the person who was not satisfying the condition, but the dependency additions would not be affected. That is precisely the same as circumstances that existed under Labour Governments.

Mrs. Beckett: First, although what the Minister is saying is right in terms of the background provisions working against the availability for work test, the whole point of having the actively seeking work test is that it is likely to be much more stringent and therefore much more likely to bite on people.
Secondly, surely my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right in saying that people's rights to benefit will be removed from them under clause 10 if they are ruled not to be actively seeking work, although, as the Minister drifted into saying in his last few sentences, if they can show that there is hardship, they may get some income with which to support their family. That is not the same as talking as if it is an automatic process. We think that it should be an automatic process, and that is the purpose of the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) has moved.

Mr. Scott: I am not saying that everything should stand still and that one should not, from time to time, consider such matters, but the hon. Lady was herself a member of Government—admittedly of one that applied the "availability" not the "actively seeking" test—who had exactly the same provisions to discourage people from resting on benefit instead of being in the business of getting themselves re-employed. I cannot accept amendment No. 5.
On amendment No. 113, in the name of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), it is fair to say that anybody claiming benefit on the basis of unemployment should be in the business of seeking work. That is what unemployment benefit is for: it is to help people who, through no fault of their own, become

unemployed, and it is right that they should be encouraged to get back into work as soon as possible. I believe—I said this in Committee and I repeat it now—that that test will be applied fairly and reasonably.
Of course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we must take account of a wide variety of factors and a wide range of abilities and disabilities in reaching the decision. What we propose to do in regulations is to require that the claimant should show that he is looking for work by taking steps to secure the type of employment for which he is best suited and for which he is most likely to be recruited. If the claimant could not be expected to take any such step because physically or mentally it is beyond his capabilities, that would have to be taken into account in reaching a view about what is appropriate for him.
It is a question of balance. We do not want to write off people with disabilities and say that they cannot have any sort of work, but a judgment must be made about the sort of work that their handicap enables them to do. We shall write that, as well as other matters, into the regulations.
Another matter raised in Committee was the effect of homelessness on the sort of employment that people might be able to take. There will obviously be opportunities for us to discuss such issues under the affirmative procedure in due course when we discuss the regulations, but we are anxious to see that the regulations are drawn in such a way as to meet the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire.

Mr. Flynn: Obviously, the point is not getting through. The present deduction of 40 per cent. is made in cases where someone has, in the judgment that has been made, voluntarily made himself or herself lose a job, or where a claimant has given up a job. That punitive measure is then taken. At the moment, we allow the 100 per cent. deduction where people are not available for work and the conclusion is reached that the person is not really unemployed, but is working at another job. Our objection is that, if a junior clerk decides that someone is not actively seeking work—allowing for what has been said today, we know that claimants are allowed two weeks' holiday in which they need not be actively seeking work—because he or she has failed to keep the log up to date or has missed a certain week through inadvertence, neglect, or 101 perfectly acceptable reasons, the claimant is then subject to this punitive and harsh measure whereby he or she loses not only any benefit available to him or her, but also the entitlement to income support—as does the family.
That is our point. Although it was not said in Committee, as it stands at the moment, this clause will punish the person who is claimed to be not actively seeking work, and that punishment is harsh not only on that person, but on the family. That is what comes out clearly when we read and re-read the reports of the Committee stage.

Mr. Scott: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and, although on reflection and further study I think that he will discover that he is wrong, I cannot accept the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Is the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) seeking to withdraw his amendment?

Mr. Flynn: No, we wish to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 265.

Division Number 179]
[8.37 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Illsley, Eric


Armstrong, Hilary
Ingram, Adam


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Janner, Greville


Ashton, Joe
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Kilfedder, James


Barron, Kevin
Kirkwood, Archy


Battle, John
Lamond, James


Beckett, Margaret
Leadbitter, Ted


Bermingham, Gerald
Lewis, Terry


Bidwell, Sydney
Livsey, Richard


Blair, Tony
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Boyes, Roland
Loyden, Eddie


Bradley, Keith
McAllion, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Buchan, Norman
McKelvey, William


Buckley, George J.
McLeish, Henry


Caborn, Richard
Madden, Max


Callaghan, Jim
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Martlew, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maxton, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Meacher, Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Meale, Alan


Clay, Bob
Michael, Alun


Cohen, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbett, Robin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Crowther, Stan
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cryer, Bob
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cummings, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dalyell, Tam
Mowlam, Marjorie


Darling, Alistair
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Murphy, Paul


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Nellist, Dave


Dixon, Don
O'Brien, William


Dobson, Frank
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Patchett, Terry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Pendry, Tom


Eadie, Alexander
Pike, Peter L.


Eastham, Ken
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Prescott, John


Fatchett, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Faulds, Andrew
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Robertson, George


Flannery, Martin
Rogers, Allan


Flynn, Paul
Rooker, Jeff


Foster, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Foulkes, George
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fyfe, Maria
Short, Clare


Galbraith, Sam
Skinner, Dennis


Galloway, George
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Soley, Clive


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Spearing, Nigel


George, Bruce
Steel, Rt Hon David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steinberg, Gerry


Gordon, Mildred
Stott, Roger


Gould, Bryan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Graham, Thomas
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Turner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Wall, Pat


Grocott, Bruce
Walley, Joan


Hardy, Peter
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Hinchliffe, David
Wareing, Robert N.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Holland, Stuart
Wigley, Dafydd


Home Robertson, John
Winnick, David


Hood, Jimmy
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Howells, Geraint
Worthington, Tony


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Tellers for the Ayes:





Mr. Frank Haynes and



Mrs Llin Golding.



NOES


Adley, Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Alexander, Richard
Fookes, Dame Janet


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Forman, Nigel


Allason, Rupert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Amess, David
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Ashby, David
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Freeman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
French, Douglas


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bellingham, Henry
Goodlad, Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gorst, John


Benyon, W.
Gow, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gregory, Conal


Body, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Grist, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ground, Patrick


Boswell, Tim
Hague, William


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hannam, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Bright, Graham
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Heddle, John


Burns, Simon
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Burt, Alistair
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Butcher, John
Hill, James


Butler, Chris
Hind, Kenneth


Butterfill, John
Holt, Richard


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howard, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd,


Cash, William
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Irvine, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irving, Charles


Conway, Derek
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jackson, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
Janman, Tim


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David
Key, Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dicks, Terry
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lawrence, Ivan


Evennett, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fallon, Michael
Lightbown, David


Favell, Tony
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lord, Michael


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Luce, Rt Hon Richard






Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew


McCrindle, Robert
Ryder, Richard


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Sackville, Hon Tom


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


McLoughlin, Patrick
Scott, Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Major, Rt Hon John
Shelton, Sir William


Mans, Keith
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marland, Paul
Shersby, Michael


Marlow, Tony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maude, Hon Francis
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mellor, David
Steen, Anthony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stern, Michael


Miller, Sir Hal
Stevens, Lewis


Mills, Iain
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Monro, Sir Hector
Sumberg, David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Summerson, Hugo


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Moss, Malcolm
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neale, Gerrard
Thornton, Malcolm


Nelson, Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tracey, Richard


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trippier, David


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Oppenheim, Phillip
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Paice, James
Walters, Sir Dennis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Watts, John


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Raffan, Keith
Woodcock, Mike


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert
Younger, Rt Hon George


Riddick, Graham



Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Tony Durant.


Rost, Peter

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 12

HOUSING BENEFIT SUBSIDY

Amendments made: No. 15 in page 8, line 21 after '(b)' insert
`, other than those added by the Local Government and Housing Act 1989,'.

No. 17 in line 34, leave out `within a prescribed period'.

No. 18 in line 36, at end insert
`and any such authority shall comply with prescribed requirements as to the time for making such an application.'.

No. 19 in line 37, leave out subsection (2C) and insert—
`(2C) Where a local authority would have been required to apply to a rent officer for determination under the Housing

Act functions in a pre-commencement case, had the first regulations under subsection (2B) above come into force on 1st April 1989, regulations may make provision—

(a) requiring the authority in prescribed circumstances to apply within a prescribed period to the rent officer for that determination to be made; and
(b) requiring the rent officer in prescribed circumstances to make that determination on prescribed assumptions;

and in this subsection "pre-commencement case" means any case which arises before the date on which the first regulations under subsection (2B) above in fact come into force.'.

No. 20 in page 9, line 35, at end insert—
`(8CC) If the Secretary of State considers it reasonable to do so in any particular case, he may give the authority in question written notice extending any of the periods prescribed under subsection (8C) above for the purposes of paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of that subsection, as the case may be.'. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 16

UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION RELATING TO PARTICULAR PERSONS

Amendments made: No. 63 in page 14, line 12 at end insert
`or in any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland'.

No. 64, in page 14, line 20, at end insert—
'(3A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence—

(a) he believed that he was making the disclosure in question with lawful authority and had no reasonable cause to believe otherwise; or
(b) he believed that the information in question had previously been disclosed to the public with lawful authority and had no reasonable cause to believe otherwise.'.

No. 65, in page 14, line 29, at end insert
'or in any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland'.

No. 66, in page 14, line 32, after `Schedule', insert `or that corresponding enactment'.

No. 67, in page 14, line 38, after 'Act', insert
'or in any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland'.

No. 68, in page 14, line 39, after `Schedule' insert
`or any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland'.

No. 69, in page 14, line 44, at end insert—
'(aa) the Comptroller and Auditor General for Northern Ireland;'.

No. 70, in page 14, line 45, at end insert—
`(bb) the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration;'.

No. 71, in page 15, line 1, at end insert—
'(ee) the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints;'.

No. 72, in page 15, line 2 after `Office' insert—
`or of the Northern Ireland Audit Office,
(ff) any other person who carries out the administrative work of either of those Offices, or who provides, or is employed in the provision of, services to either of them;'.

No. 73, in page 15, line 4 leave out `to (e)' and insert `(bb) and (c) to (ee)'.

No. 74, in page 15, line 9 leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

`(a) in accordance with his official duty—

(i) by a civil servant; or
(ii) by a person employed in the audit of expenditure or the investigation of complaints who does not fall within subsection (7)(ff) above ;'.

No. 75, in page 15, line 12 `person', insert `either (i)'.

No. 76, in page 15, line 16 leave out `(c)' and insert 'or (ii)'.

No. 77, in page 15, line 25 at end insert
`and includes a reference to "the person responsible" within the meaning of any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland.'.

No. 105, in page 15, line 31, leave out from '1983' to 'as' in line 34 and insert
'or any corresponding enactment having effect in Northern Ireland,
(c) by a Scottish mental health custodian, that is to say—

(i) a curator bonis, tutor or judicial factor, or
(ii) the managers of a hospital acting on behalf of that person under section 94 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984, or

(d) by a mental health appointee, that is to say—

(i) a person directed or authorised as mentioned in paragraph (a) of rule 41(1) of the Court of Protection Rules 1984 or any similar appointee in Northern Ireland, or
(ii) a receiver ad interim appointed under paragraph (b) of that rule, or any similar appointee in Northern Ireland,

the appropriate person is the attorney, receiver, custodian or appointee,'.

No. 80, in page 15, line 36, at end insert—
'(10) This section shall come into force with the repeal of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.'.—[Mr. Scott.]

Schedule 1

PERSONS EMPLOYED IN SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OR ADJUDICATION

Amendments made: No. 83, in page 24, line 37, at end insert—
'A benefit officer.
An insurance officer.'.

No. 84, in page 25, line 10, after 'or', insert—
'to occupational or personal pension schemes or to'.

No. 85, in page 25, line 12, after `above' insert—
`occupational pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 66(1) of the Pensions Act;
personal pension scheme" has the meaning given by section 84(1) of the 1986 Act; and'.

No. 86, in page 25, line 16, at end insert—
'or related to the former supplementary benefit'.

No. 27, in page 25, line 19, leave out `by persons in it'.

No. 87, in page 25, line 23, after 'to', insert '(a)'.

No. 88, in page 25, line 27, at end insert—
'.,or
(b) the tax treatment of occupational or personal pension schemes, as defined in paragraph 1(2) above:. — [Mr. Scott.]

Clause 19

RECOVERY OF SUMS EQUIVALENT TO BENEFIT FROM COMPENSATION PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS, INJURIES AND DISEASES

Mr. Flynn: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 16, line 13, at end insert
(less any amount by which the compensation payment would have been greater but for the contributory negligence of the victim".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in page 16, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert—
`(c) only to the extent that any part of the payment is, or in prescribed circumstances is deemed to be, for a prescribed purpose other than reimbursement for costs incurred in procuring the payment and does

not exceed the amount of benefit, determined under subsection (1)(a) above, paid or likely to be paid for the same purpose,
but'.

Mr. Flynn: In view of the disagreement that we had on a previous amendment, there is a real prospect of a collapse of understanding between the two sides of the House. It was apparent in Committee that we were not talking about the same thing. Clause 19 is a fine example of how a Government bent on reform will act. We must say a grudging word of congratulation because the Government have tackled an extremely difficult problem. However, if one decides to do that, there is always a great danger that one will make the position worse. In many ways the Government have turned an untidy state of affairs into an unjust one and created chaos out of confusion. In Committee we withdrew an amendment similar to amendment No. 104 so that the Government might think again and so that good sense might prevail. The example given by the Minister in Committee was faulty.
The two areas involved in the clause are the possibility of over-compensation, a dread area of Tory demonology, and the possibility of someone getting away with something, especially someone who is not well off. The Government are worried that someone may gain a few pennies to which he is not strictly entitled. Because state benefits and compensation for accidents are given for different purposes, there is a serious conflict. It is impossible to match the two awards. It is like mixing oil with water. Compensation for damages is awarded for pain, for suffering, for loss of amenity and for loss of standing in the labour market. Social security benefits are paid for different purposes—for additional needs arising from disability or to meet losses that are suffered inevitably because of absence from the labour market.
The objection of the Minister of State to a similar amendment in Committee was that it might result in the dread over-compensation. He gave an example of what he called the perverse result that the suggested system would achieve, citing a case in which compensation was reduced from £10,000 to £5,000 due to contributory negligence and the injured party had received £2,000 in social security benefits. Under the Government's proposal the compensation of £5,000 would be reduced by a further £2,000 so that the Department of Social Security could get its money back and the person would receive £5,000 in total—£3,000 in compensation and £2,000 in benefit. The Minister continued on the same basis:
if we follow the line taken by the amendment, the person would end up with £6,000, rather than £5,000. He would be over-compensated in total and the taxpayer would have to make up the difference."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 2 March 1989; c. 867.]
The Minister was wrong in Committee about the effect of the amendment.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Is it not a fact that compensation is meant to pay for the physical injuries that a person has suffered and for the diminution in his earning power? Surely it is not meant to compensate the Government for benefits paid. Would it not be fairer if the Government accepted that compensation is a separate entity and that benefit should continue to be paid? This will clearly be a problem following the Hillsborough disaster.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend has put his finger on the very point that I was about to make. The effect of the amendment would be to reduce the amount of benefit repayable to the DSS by the full amount of compensation lost due to contributory negligence. In the case that the Minister cited, the compensation payment was reduced by £5,000 due to contributory negligence. In those circumstances, the repayment of benefit would not arise unless the benefit amounted to more than £5,000 so that the total amount paid in compensation and benefit exceeded the figure at which damages were assessed. The total amount paid in the case that the Minister cited would be £10,000. None of it would be repayable, so the person would end up with £7,000, not £6,000, but it does not matter whether the total is £6,000 or £7,000 because the person has actually lost £10,000.
I would need visual aids to explain the point properly. If we decide that the loss is £10,000, that is the loss—the total amount of money from whatever source, whether it be security or compensation—which should be paid unless one takes the view that people ought not be compensated for any injury unless someone else was to blame. That is where we get into the strange and difficult interface between two benefits—compensation and social security. Such a decision would be startling and runs contrary to all the principles on which the social security system has always operated. A person who claims benefit as a result of food poisoning does not have to prove that someone poisoned his soup—he has to prove only that he is ill. The same applies to industrial injuries. The whole point of the industrial injuries scheme was to get away from the need to prove that the employer was to blame. If the injury arises from the job, benefit is payable in full whether or not there is contributory negligence on the part of the victim.
The logic of the Minister's argument is that someone who carelessly walks out on the road, is run over and is confined to a wheelchair for the next 40 years would not be allowed to draw income support, let alone invalidity benefit or mobility allowance, because there was 100 per cent. contributory negligence. According to the Minister, any benefit payment would be over-compensation. If that means anything, it must mean that a person has received more than he or she lost as a result of the injury. If that can be proved, there may be a case for the compensator or the DSS to recover part of the money.
Amendment No. 104 seeks to remove from the scope of clause 19 cases in which there is no possibility of over-compensation because the amount deducted for contributory negligence is more than the amount received in benefit. I can anticipate what the Minister will say about the practicalities because unless the compensation is determined by the court nobody will know what precise deduction has been made for contributory negligence. However, we had a great deal of evidence that in many cases the division was not made between compensation and deductions for contributory negligence. The Minister is creating a new situation. It is very much his problem. If he cannot find a solution that is both practical and fair, the recruitment arrangements cannot be operated in a proper way. The Government should accept that they have yet to find the proper answer and abandon the whole proposal.
9 pm
The Minister may also repeat his statement in Committee that the Government proposals were in accord with what Beveridge recommended in 1942. We have had

an opportunity to re-read what Beveridge said in his report. The question of contributory negligence, which is crucial to the amendment, is not dealt with but at the end of that section of the report Beveridge wrote:
It is not possible in this report to do more than to raise these questions. Considered answers can be given only by inquiry by some Committee with technical and practical qualifications and with time to examine all the detailed areas involved.
It is wrong, therefore, to treat Beveridge as the final authority on this matter. In fact the compromise solution adopted in the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 took into account contributory negligence, deliberately departing from Beveridge's very tentative recommendations. We look forward to hearing how the Minister intends to find a solution which makes some practical sense or that he will withdraw the clause.
Amendment No. 6 was again similar to the one at Committee. We ran into difficulties and objections from the Minister, who suggested with some effrontery that it might produce a situation which was "excessively bureaucratic and legalistic". The Government are the authors of the change, so the obligation is again on them to achieve it without injustice. Unamended, the clause will certainly cause serious injustice.
Amendment No. 6 seeks to avoid the taking away of benefit which had been properly awarded and received. As the clause stands, benefits paid for one reason can be recovered out of compensation payments made for an entirely different purpose or even taken out of payments which are not compensation but reimbursement of the victim's costs. In Committee the case of Parry v Cleaver was cited, which provided that one should take away only those things that are like from like.
The amendments that we put to the Committee were unacceptable, but they were not answered fully. The whole basis of the Government's argument is the need to avoid double compensation. If a person suffers an injury and receives social security benefits to compensate for loss of earnings and a payment of damages for pain and suffering, the payments of benefits and damages are for different and mutually exclusive purposes and cannot, therefore, be double compensation.
The Government's proposals might possibly be defensible if all the victims of personal injuries received full compensation through the courts. Social security benefits would then be a kind of interim payment that it would be reasonable to deduct from the final compensation payment. However, in practice hardly anyone gets full compensation. Once again, the question of contributory negligence arises. That can result in the victim receiving partial compensation under a number of different heads of damages. If the whole of the benefits are recovered out of that partial compensation, it can mean, for example, that attendance and mobility allowances are recovered from damages that are paid for loss of earnings. That cannot be right.
The most blatantly unfair aspect of the proposal is the treatment of costs. Whatever justification there may be for recovering social security benefits out of payments of compensation for injury, there can be no conceivable justification for recovering them out of payments of legal costs. Yet the Government not only intend to do that, but actually amended the Bill in Committee to remove any


doubt as to their intention. The amendment had the effect of adding to the definition of a "compensation payment" the words:
and includes, in particular, so much of the payment as represents reimbursement for costs incurred in procuring it.
Amendment 6 would remove those words.

Mr. Bermingham: Has it not always been a fundamental principle of English law that where one succeeds in one's action one is entitled to succeed in one's action for costs? Is my hon. Friend saying that the Government are suggesting that because one is returned to status quo—that is, no costs—they have a lien on the money that one receives and that theoretically one could be put at a loss through winning one's case?

Mr. Flynn: That is precisely the Government's intention, and it will certainly be the effect of the amendment. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) making a contribution on that point.
The Minister argued in Committee that there should, in practice, be no problem in that area. The amount to be recovered should fall within the normal payments, excluding costs. That may prove to be true in most cases, but certainly not in every case. There will be cases in which the whole of the compensation payment, including the costs element, will be handed over to the DSS. That is especially likely in cases which take several years to settle, during which a large sum has been paid in benefits and substantial costs have been incurred. In such cases, the victim could end up not only without any compensation, but with a debt for legal fees. A bizarre situation could be created.
On that point as on many others, the Minister's main argument in Committee was that most compensation payments could not be divided into their constituent elements and, therefore, it was impractical to operate the like from like principle. Again, we appreciate the difficulty. That is probably the reason why no one has tackled this for a long time, but if it is impractical to operate that principle, either generally or in relation to cost—if it cannot be made to work fairly—that is no excuse for allowing this ragbag to go forward, which will work unfairly and unjustly and will breach long-established principles of British justice.

Mr. Bill Michie: I want to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) said about tried and tested traditions and the values that we have held in the past. Anyone who has represented people who have had problems through damage to their bodies caused at, for example, work will know that the compensation for victims of accident and disease is calculated on general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity; special damages, which are the financial losses calculated up to date of trial or settlement, including loss of earnings; loss of earning capacity, where, for example, the injury puts the victim at a disadvantage on the open labour market; loss of services, where, for example, a mother is unable to perform household duties to the pre-accident extent; and future financial losses, which are, for example, loss of earnings, pension loss and future expenses. All those have been valued in the past, but many are put in jeopardy by the clause.
For the past 41 years, the victim has given credit to the compensator for one half of the value of the relevant state

benefit for up to five years from the date of accident, but that is only as against the loss of the earning claim. Under the present proposal, victims will have gross statutory sick pay and the prescribed benefit paid for a period of up to five years—depending on the date of settlement—deducted from the total compensation payment, even if the victim recovers compensation on the basis of less than 100 per cent. compensation. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West emphasised. It is not as if the victim receives 100 per cent. compensation and value for money. Under the Government's proposals, all victims will be affected, whether they receive 100 per cent., 5 per cent. or 20 per cent. compensation.
I could quote many examples, but I have been asked to be brief to allow other hon. Members to contribute. However, I want to refer to the example of a man who is claiming general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenities in the sum of £20,000. His special damages include loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity of £5,000. They also include loss of future pension for which he receives £2,000. His pre-accident net earnings were £200 a week. He is off work for two years and receives company sick pay of £150 a week for six months and £75 a week for the subsequent six months. He receives no company sick pay for the second year's absence. He returns to work after two years, suffering a partial loss of earnings of £50 a week for two years. He receives statutory sick pay of £1,260 and sickness and invalidity benefit of £5,000. He also receives a reduced earnings allowance of £4,500 and industrial disablement benefit of £4,000 until the date of the settlement five years after the accident. Due to the serious medical condition, the case is not capable of earlier settlement. As the law stands, before the Bill is enacted, that man's full liability would be £39,140. Under the new set-up, when the Bill is enacted, he will receive £32,390.
As the percentage of compensation is reduced from 100 per cent., the victim receives less. At liability of 25 per cent., the man would receive at least £9,785. Under the new system, he would receive nothing at that level of compensation. It would all he clawed back. We tried to express that problem several times in Committee, but unfortunately to no avail.
There are many injustices in clause 19. One hundred per cent. state benefits paid to victims partially to replace income will be deducted from total compensation. The compensation will be recovered for even part payments for damages. Even if payments are very small, they will still be clawed back until someone is likely to lose more money by making a claim than by not making one.
The better-off victim who receives a fairly decent settlement would not claim social security benefit. However, the poor victim who has nothing must claim benefit, but he is penalised when he claims compensation to which, under the old law, he was entitled.
My colleagues from the Amalgamated Engineering Union have had meetings and discussed these points. We have experience of industrial injuries. The AEU has a great record in that respect. The union is worried that the injustice will affect nearly all compensation claims in the long run. The Government should accept the amendment and, therefore, protect people who are already in a traumatic state as a result of their injuries. Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will change their minds and accept the amendment.

Mr. Bermingham: I had not proposed to intervene in the debate until I saw the purport of the amendments and the purport of the clause. I should declare a passing interest as I am a member of the legal profession. Over the years I have been involved in many civil settlements, particularly when I was a solicitor in Sheffield.
I do not believe that the Government or the parliamentary draftsmen have any comprehension of how the system of settlement actually works. It is not cut and dried. In the vast majority of agreed settlements, no specific figure is agreed for contributory negligence. We try to find a sum of money to compensate the injured party for the injuries he has suffered. In the old days half the benefits were taken into account in the assessment calculation. However, costs followed the event. If I read the clause correctly—and I hope that the Minister will disabuse me in due course if my interpretation is wrong—all social security benefits will be included in the assessment. Where there has been a finding of contributory negligence, that will lie against the net figure due to the claimant after the deduction for contributory negligence.
9.15 pm
If we had been wise enough years ago to follow the Pearson report on no-fault liability, all these problems would have disappeared. The Government are trying to stretch their clammy hands to claw back any compensation. If someone is injured through the fault of another, that person must be the loser. The state will lose not a penny. The old compensation that would have been paid will no longer flow to the injured party.
The clause even claws back costs. That shows the draftsmens' ignorance and I can say that quite cold bloodedly. They do not seem to understand that in calculating whether to pursue a case the first question that any competent lawyer will ask himself is whether he will succeed in securing some compensation.

Mr. Bill Michie: Is my hon. Friend saying that somewhere in another place they will have a field day because of the legal technicalities and bad drafting?

Mr. Bermingham: My hon. Friend reads my mind perfectly and he knows me well.
Any competent lawyer will say to himself very gently, "Because of the length of the period of the claims to benefit, it may not be worth pursuing the claim." Any competent lawyer will say that he cannot leave his client in a position where, because of the clawback even against costs awarded, even if the client will receive a notional sum in settlement of the claim—for the sake of argument let us say £20,000, with costs of £5,000—unfortunately, because the client has been on benefit for five years, the DSS—and one is tempted to say that the Department is aptly named —will receive all the £25,000 in payment. Effectively the victim will be £5,000 out of pocket simply for pursuing the claim. That is ludicrous. The Government must reconsider.
I will digress a little now because I have an interest in these matters as the hon. Member for St. Helens, South. What will happen to the contributions made to victims of disasters such as Piper Alpha or Hillsborough where many people on Merseyside and from St. Helens were killed or injured? There may be trusts that do not have charitable status and money may be paid out. Will the DSS try to

claw back money paid to people who have suffered grievous loss through no fault of their own? Will the Government take their cut from the tragedy?

Mr. Stanley Orme: That is highly unlikely because of the emotional attitude of people throughout the country.

Mr. Frank Haynes: Oh, I do not know.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend may disagree with me there. However, does my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) agree that benefits or payments that are decided and compensation that is set by judges are different from funds connected to major disasters to which my hon. Friend has just referred? There are two standards in our nation at the moment: one for people who are affected by major disasters and will, with the help of their solicitors, quite rightly gain compensation; and one for people who, in industry, lose an arm, leg or hand and are up against a scale of payments which will be charged against the benefits that he or she receives.

Mr. Bermingham: My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. In a major disaster the heart of the nation goes out to the victims and the nation seeks to give generously. I seek a cold-blooded assurance from the Minister tonight that the generosity of the nation will not be used to compensate the cost to the Government in benefit. That would be morally indefensible. I ask the Minister quite bluntly for that assurance tonight on behalf of those people, in Merseyside and elsewhere, who have lost loved ones or have suffered grievous harm. If the Minister wants to intervene and give that assurance I shall be delighted to give way. Many in the nation seek, and have sought, that assurance but, unfortunately, it has not always been forthcoming. In such circumstances, rule books should occasionally be torn up.

Mr. Scott: I was going to deal with the matter in my concluding remarks, but as the hon. Gentleman has raised it, it might be acceptable and sensible to get it out of the way. The clause deals with compensation payments made by, or on behalf of, a person who is liable for an injury. It has nothing to do with charitable payments. Anyone who has seen the response of this country to the Hillsborough tragedy and others that, alas, we have seen recently will know that those are totally different circumstances. The funds relating to such tragedies have nothing to do with the clause.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the Minister for intervening in that way. Perhaps I should put the question more bluntly. Of course, compensation payments ultimately fall due to the families of those involved in the tragedy who are either injured or dead. If the Minister is assuring me that the Department will have no claim against payments paid out of the Hillsborough disaster fund, I will accept it. The Minister nods, but let us have it straight for the record so that we know exactly where we stand. Will the Minister intervene again and confirm that there will be no claims for the recovery of benefit against money paid from the Hillsborough trust—whether or not it is a charitable trust? I recognise that there is a difference in law between a charitable and non-charitable trust.

Mr. Scott: The answer is an unequivocal yes.

Mr. Bermingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance. I am sure that it will bring some crumb of comfort to those of my constituents who have been grievously injured.
I shall end on a practical note. Have the Minister and his officials cared to think for a moment about the effect of the unamended clause on settlement and damages claims in the courts of our land? It would not be sensible in future for lawyers—either solicitors or counsel—to settle at the current rates of settlement. The clause effectively encourages lawyers to argue further over the degree of contributory negligence, because that will become a material argument in the future. In the past on many occasions settlements have been amicable. It also means that, in future, those who act on behalf of the plaintiff —this may affect my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme)—particularly in industrial injury claims in non-disaster cases, will no longer allow their clients to settle for the existing sums of money. Those who appear on behalf of the plantiff seek to compensate the injured and return them to the state they were in before the injury. If, in the future, the Department of Social Security is to recover even greater sums, the general level of damages will have to rise.
The Minister and those who advise him have failed to understand that the premiums paid to insurers will equally have to rise to meet the anticipated increased claims. They have failed to realise that premiums have to be paid by the employers and that is an additional cost which forces up the price of the product being made and makes it less competitive.
I know the Minister well. He is an honourable man and I am sure that the clause is not the product of his mind because he is too decent. Those who drafted the clause have not thought it through because it does not go far enough. Even if amended, the clause will effectively increase the cost of products in industry and make us less competitive. We, the general public and the citizens of the United Kingdom will be the losers. This is another example of dogma leading us towards penury.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall delay the House for one moment to clarify one aspect of the clause.
First, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his statement on the Hillsborough tragedy. The item came up on "The News at One" today, and there was a suggestion that the social security department in Sheffield was unsure as to the exact position.
When we were debating the Bill in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point that the object of the clause was to ensure that nobody received double compensation, particularly since social security benefit is paid from public money. I do not quarrel with that. When awarding damages—particularly in cases of medical negligence, although this could equally apply to injury compensation—the payment is made some time, even years, after the event. Will the judge who awards the damages be aware of the social security benefits that have been paid to the person who is to receive the damages, or will he or she presume that what is being awarded is from the date of settlement? Is this really double compensation, or does the compensation for damages given by the judge run from the end of the case, so that the period during which the case was being heard is not necessarily covered by the damages?
I suggest to my hon. Friend that if, as he appears to be arguing, the compensation runs from the date of the injury, it would seem reasonable that the judge should be presented with a figure for the amount of social security benefit already paid to the victim, so that he can allow for it when deciding the final figure that he is prepared to offer in compensation for damages.

Mr. Scott: I listened with interest and respect to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), because he knows something about this area and is a practitioner of the law. He accused the Government of not having thought this through and of having got it wrong. I do not believe that that is right; nor did the National Audit Office, which looked into this, nor did the Public Accounts Committee, which also looked into it; nor have the courts, which have considered this matter, come to a different conclusion from the Government's. They have all come to a view that reflects that of Sir William Beveridge, who stated in his report:
An injured person should not have the same need met twice over. He should get benefit at once without prejudice to any alternative remedy, but if the alternative remedy proves in fact to be available, he should not in the end get more from two sources together than he would have got from one alone".
That is the principle on which we worked when producing the scheme and when seeking one that was relatively simple to operate.
To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), we shall of course give the courts details of benefits paid up to the date of settlement or award. I shall return to that point later. One reason why much of our discussion in Committee was unsoundly based and why these amendments would have a perverse outcome is that 99 per cent. of settlements take place outside the courts and only 1 per cent. of cases are considered in court. I believe that someone was unkind enough to use the words "horse trading" to describe the negotiations to settle compensation claims. Those engaged in such negotiations would know perfectly well the amount of benefit that would have been available.
The two amendments deal with matters that we discussed in Committee. As far as legal costs are concerned, in schedule 3 we have specifically provided that if, by any chance, someone on legal aid found that his legal aid costs were more than the compensation payment so that the victim was left with a bill, the Department of Social Security would meet any outstanding amounts. It would be intolerable if a very poor person, having resorted to legal aid, was left with a bill to pay. That would be unlikely, but if it happens we have made it perfectly clear in the schedule that the problem would be dealt with in the way I have described.

Mr. Bermingham: Does not the Minister accept that many industrial claims are brought in the name of the trade union, which employs solicitors and covers the costs, because they are its costs? That is one of the benefits of trade union membership. So there is a distinction between a litigant in that position and a litigant in receipt of legal aid.
I think the Minister has missed the point that I was trying to make. Is he saying that the benefit accruing to the union when recovering its costs on behalf of its member is in some way to be laid at the door of the claimant who succeeds in obtaining damages? That would be appalling.

Mr. Scott: I am not familiar with the arrangements between unions and their members for these matters. Unions have funds and their members pay dues in part to cover the costs of this sort of action. If people have a legal aid bill or have employed private lawyers, because so few cases are determined by the courts and there are no heads of agreement on what a settlement is, it is difficult to break down—

Mr. Bermingham: Does not the Minister accept that, even in a friendly case which is settled out of court—a case that does not involve a minor, which would require court approval for a settlement—the successful plaintiff's costs are always paid by the defendant? Therefore, considerable amounts of money that do not belong to the plaintiff become liable to the charge that the Minister seeks to impose in this clause.

Mr. Scott: We have taken the view, which I believe is right, that the benefit paid should be recovered from the settlement. That is what a number of independent people who have looked at the issue said was the right way to go about it, and we are following their advice.
I do not want to teach my grandmother to suck eggs, but it was apparent from what the hon. Gentleman said about extra costs and so on that he has not read the Touche Ross report about how the costs are broken down. I do not accept every figure in the Touche Ross report, but the matter was carefully considered. The Government did not take a leap in the dark. Only after looking carefully at the costs and at the advice that we received from a variety of sources did we decide that this was a fair and sensible approach.
At the moment we have a muddle. The 1948 legislation provided for some offsets against a list of benefits, but the courts have decided that, on a number of other benefits that have been introduced since then, 100 per cent. should be recovered from any compensation payment. That applies not just up to the date of the settlement or award, as we are providing here, but to future entitlement to benefit which can be offset against the settlement that has been made. On balance, some 80 per cent. of victims receiving compensation could find themselves at least as well off as before or even better off, because there is no offsetting of future benefits against this. At the moment benefits are offset for five years, and sometimes ahead of that. On average, 80 per cent. of cases are settled within two and a half years—a pattern that I would expect to continue. In those circumstances, many people will find themselves better off than they would be under the existing system.
The vast majority of these cases are dealt with out of court, with only 1 per cent. being decided by a judge. I think that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) recognised that in some circumstances there may be difficulties in matching heads of damages awards and the payment of benefit. That is a fair understatement of the real problems that face the Department when it has to make great inquiries into the various heads of damages that have been awarded. But the hon. Member for St. Helens, South must know that negotiations continue and the victim is offered a global sum to settle. No calcuation of how that figure has been arrived at is stated. That would be impossible because of the informality.
I do not want to delay the House unduly, but both amendments would be perverse in their effects. They

would undermine the simplicity and the underlying fairness of the system that we are introducing, endorsed by Beveridge, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office and the courts. In those circumstances, I shall in due course be advising the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Minister should not use Beveridge and others to justify this move by the Government to reclaim benefits from people who receive only a small amount of benefit in any case. The hon. Gentleman says that he is not sure what the trade unions do. My trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, has spent a great deal of money representing people injured in industry and elsewhere in reclaiming benefits. It has to go to court to do so. Amounts are determined by the judge on the basis on whether the person has lost an arm, a leg, a hand or whatever. We then see other people getting £1 million even though they have not lost any faculty. I assure the Minister that people regard this move by the Government as a gross injustice.

Mr. Scott: I do not agree. Of course anybody who takes any notice of these things will know that there may be a capricious element in the compensation that people get for injury or disease, depending on the circumstances. I cannot put all that to rights in this legislation. I can only follow up what Beveridge recommended. That could not be agreed at the end of the war, but others of great authority have endorsed the principle that people are certainly entitled to benefit in the short term, when they need money immediately to pay their own and their families living expenses. But when, finally, a person is judged to have been guilty, or has accepted liability, the taxpayer, having provided interim support, should not be left with the compensation bill. I believe that that is an unassailable principle. It has been strongly endorsed, and I invite the House to reject the two amendments.

Mr. Flynn: The Minister persists in quoting Beveridge, so I must quote back at him Beveridge's conclusion that it was not possible to do more than raise these questions. Beveridge reached no conclusions whatever; he simply stated the problems. We all agree that one of his recommendations was that there should not be any question of double compensation at anyone's expense—and certainly not at the expense of the social security system. But the Minister has again failed to make the case in answer to our point that, in respct of contributory negligence, there is no question of over-compensation unless the amount is beyond what is decided as the gross amount. If damages are set at £10,000, and the figure is reduced by any amount because of contributory negligence, that is no excuse for trying to bridge the gap by taking away money due in social security benefit.
There is another point that is very revealing. When an event such as the Hillsborough disaster occurs, we all feel bereaved. While we share the grief of the families involved in that, it would be foolish to ignore the tens of thousands of individuals injured just as grievously elsewhere. People just as unfortunate, just as poor and just as badly hurt will lose social security payments in a way that has never been known before.
I am very grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who rightly pointed out the problems that will occur as a result of this legislation. Of course the amendments that we are


proposing are not enough. A whole battery of changes were proposed in Committee. Had they been accepted, they would have improved the Bill greatly and softened its damaging effect. The Minister and the Department are trying to mix two elements, two heads of damages, which cannot be mixed. They are trying to achieve a fusion. While fusion may well have been achieved at room temperature in another area, the fusion that is being attempted here will produce a cocktail so volatile that it will explode in their faces.
We intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 277.

Division No. 180]
[9.43


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Armstrong, Hilary
Gordon, Mildred


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Gould, Bryan


Ashton, Joe
Graham, Thomas


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Grocott, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Hardy, Peter


Battle, John
Henderson, Doug


Beckett, Margaret
Hinchliffe, David


Bermingham, Gerald
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Home Robertson, John


Boyes, Roland
Hood, Jimmy


Bradley, Keith
Howells, Geraint


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hoyle, Doug


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Buckley, George J.
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Callaghan, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Janner, Greville


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Kilfedder, James


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clay, Bob
Lamond, James


Cohen, Harry
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Livsey, Richard


Crowther, Stan
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Loyden, Eddie


Cummings, John
McAllion, John


Cunlitte, Lawrence
McAvoy, Thomas


Dalyell, Tam
Macdonald, Calum A.


Darling, Alistair
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Madden, Max


Dixon, Don
Marek, Dr John


Dobson, Frank
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Martlew, Eric


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alexander
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meale, Alan


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michael, Alun


Fatchett, Derek
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foster, Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foulkes, George
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Nellist, Dave


Galbraith, Sam
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert





Patchett, Terry
Strang, Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Pike, Peter L.
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Turner, Dennis


Prescott, John
Vaz, Keith


Quin, Ms Joyce
Wall, Pat


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Walley, Joan


Richardson, Jo
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Robertson, George
Wareing, Robert N.


Rogers, Allan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Winnick, David


Short, Clare
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wray, Jimmy


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Steel, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Stott, Roger
Mrs. Llin Golding.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cran, James


Allason, Rupert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amess, David
Curry, David


Amos, Alan
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Aspinwall, Jack
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dicks, Terry


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Dykes, Hugh


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Evennett, David


Benyon, W.
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fallon, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Favell, Tony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Body, Sir Richard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fookes, Dame Janet


Boswell, Tim
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bowis, John
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Franks, Cecil


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
French, Douglas


Brazier, Julian
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gill, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Burns, Simon
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Burt, Alistair
Gorst, John


Butcher, John
Gow, Ian


Butler, Chris
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Butterfill, John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gregory, Conal


Carrington, Matthew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Carttiss, Michael
Grist, Ian


Cash, William
Ground, Patrick


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hague, William


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Hawkins, Christopher


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayes, Jerry


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayward, Robert


Cope, Rt Hon John
Heathcoat-Amory, David






Heddle, John
Mudd, David


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neale, Gerrard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholls, Patrick


Holt, Richard
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howard, Michael
Norris, Steve


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Paice, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Irving, Charles
Powell, William (Corby)


Jack, Michael
Price, Sir David


Jackson, Robert
Raff an, Keith


Janman, Tim
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Redwood, John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rowe, Andrew


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Scott, Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shelton, Sir William


Lang, Ian
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sims, Roger


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McCrindle, Robert
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Summerson, Hugo


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Madel, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Major, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mans, Keith
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maples, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Thornton, Malcolm


Marlow, Tony
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tracey, Richard


Maude, Hon Francis
Tredinnick, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Trippier, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mellor, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Miller, Sir Hal
Walden, George


Mills, Iain
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Moate, Roger
Ward, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Whitney, Ray


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Widdecombe, Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wolfson, Mark





Wood, Timothy



Woodcock, Mike
Tellers for the Noes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Tony Durant and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Younger, Rt Hon George

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 16, line 44, at end insert—
'compensator", "victim" and "intended recipient" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (1) above;'.

No. 11, in page 16, line 44, at end insert—
'costs", in relation to proceedings in Scotland, means expenses;'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 3

RECOVERY OF SUMS EQUIVALENT TO BENEFIT FROM COMPENSATION PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF ACCIDENTS ETC: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 30, leave out line 38.

No. 89, in page 33, line 18, at end insert—

'Structured settlements
6A.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) in final settlement of a person's claim, an agreement is entered into—

(i) for the making of periodical payments (whether of an income or capital nature) to or in respect of the victim; or
(ii) for the making of such payments and one or more lump sum payments; and

(b) apart from this paragraph, those payments would fall to be regarded for the purposes of the recoupment provisions as compensation payments.

(2) Where this paragraph applies, the recoupment provisions (other than this paragraph) shall have effect on the following assumptions, that is to say—

(a) the relevant period in the case of the compensator in question shall be taken to end (if it has not previously done so) on the day of settlement;
(b) the compensator in question shall be taken—

(i) to have been liable to make on that day a single compensation payment of the amount referred to in section 19(1)(a) of this Act (reduced or increased in accordance with such of the recoupment provisions as would have applied in the case of a payment on that day); and
(ii) to have made from that single payment a relevant deduction of an amount equal to it; and

(c) the payments under the agreement referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above that shall be taken to be exempt payments.

(3) The intended recipient shall not by virtue of anything in this paragraph become entitled to be paid any sum, whether by the compensator or the Secretary of State, and if on a review or appeal under paragraph 15 or 17 below it appears that the amount paid by a compensator in pursuance of this paragraph either exceeded or was less than it ought to have been, then—

(a) any excess shall be repaid to the compensator instead of to the intended recipient; but
(b) any deficiency shall be paid to the Secretary of State by the intended recipient.

(4) Where any further compensation payment falls to be made to or in respect of the victim otherwise than under the agreement in question, sub-paragraph (2)(a) above shall be disregarded for the purpose of determining the end of the relevant period in relation to that further payment.
(5) In any case where—

(a) the person making the periodical payments (the "secondary party") does so in pursuance of arrangements entered into with another (as in a case where an insurance company purchases an annuity for the victim from another such company), and


(b) apart from those arrangements, that other ("the primary party") would have been regarded as the compensator,

then for the purposes of the recoupment provisions, the primary party shall be regarded as the compensator and the secondary party shall not be so regarded.

(6) In determining for the purposes of this paragraph whether any periodical payments would fall to be regarded as compensation payments, section 19(4)(a) of this Act shall be disregarded.

(7) In this paragraph "the day of settlement" means—

(a) if the agreement referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above is approved by a court, the day on which that approval is given; and
(b) in any other case, the day on which that agreement is entered into.'.

No. 92, in page 34, line 21, leave out
'deduction from, or payment out of,'
and insert
`relevant deduction or payment in connection with'.

No. 93, in page 34, line 27, leave out 'withhold from the' and insert
'either—
(i) withhold from such a'.

No. 94, in page 34, line 28, leave out 'and' and insert `or
(ii) make such a payment into court before the certificate of total benefit has been issued to him; and'.

No. 95, in page 34, line 32, after 'person,' insert
'making a payment into court'.

No. 96, in page 34, line 33, leave out '(2)(a) above, he shall' and insert
`(2)(a)(i) above—
(a) he shall, at the time when he makes that payment,'.

No. 97, in page 34, line 34, after 'and', insert `(b)'.

No. 98, in page 34, leave out lines 36 and 37 and—
`but no person shall be entitled by virtue of this sub-paragraph to the payment out of court of any amount which has not in fact been paid into court.
(3A) Where a payment into court is made as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii) above, the compensator—

(a) shall apply for the certificate of total benefit no later than the day on which the payment into court is made; and
(b) shall become liable to make the relevant payment as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above, notwithstanding that the relevant deduction has not been made.

(3B) Where any such payment into court as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above is paid out of court to or for the other party to the action within the initial period, then, as respects the compensator in question, the relevant period whall be taken to have ended on the day on which the payment into court was made.
(3C) In sub-paragraph (3B) above "the initial period" means the period of 21 days following the making of the payment into court, but rules of court may make provision varying the length of that period.
(3D) Rules of court may make provision regulating or prescribing the practice and procedure to be followed in relation to such payments into court as are mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above.'.

No. 28, in page 35, line 18, leave out
'requests the Secretary of State to furnish him with'
and insert
`applies to the Secretary of State in accordance with paragraph 3 above for'.

No. 29, in page 35, line 20, leave out 'comply with that request' and insert
`furnish him with such a certificate'.

No. 30, in page 35, line 22, leave out 'request' and insert 'application'.

No. 31, in page 35, line 26, leave out 'request' and insert 'application'.

No. 32, in page 35, line 36, leave out 'the relevant'.

No. 12, in page 37, line 8, after '1981', insert
'or section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982'.

No. 33, in page 38, line 15, leave out 'the victim' and insert 'a person'.

No. 34, in page 38, line 17, leave out 'the victim' and insert 'a person'.

No. 90, in page 38, line 44, leave out 'the amount so certified' and insert 'that relevant payment'.

No. 91, in page 40, line 21, after 'Where', insert
immediately before the making of the compensation payment,'.

No. 13, in page 41, line 2, at end insert—

'Modification of Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985
22. In section 31 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (vesting of debtor's estate at date of sequestration) in subsection (8) after the words "subsection (9) below" there shall be inserted the words "and to paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Act 1989.".'. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 4

EMPLOYMENT-RELATED SCHEMES FOR PENSIONS OR OTHER BENEFITS: EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MEN AND WOMEN

Mr. John Watts: I beg to move, amendment No. 62, in page 41, line 45, at end insert
`(h) any permitted difference on the basis of the sex of members, in the level of benefit payable from any employment-related benefit scheme which has an equal normal pension age for men and women which is lower than 65, between the ages of 60 and 65. Any difference in the level of benefit payable shall be a permitted difference if it does not exceed an amount equal to the basic state pension in force under the state scheme from time to time.'.

The Bill implements a European directive requiring equal treatment for men and women in pension schemes. However—

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.

Mr. Watts: Equal treatement does not extend to equal retirement ages, so the discrimination against men in the state retirement scheme and in other pension schemes, where it exists, will be allowed to continue. However, many enlightened employers, such as the Mars group, an important employer in my constituency, have followed, a policy of equal retirement ages for men and women and equal benefits for equal lengths of service.
I shall illustrate the difficulty which has arisen from the way in which the Bill implements the directive. If a man and a woman join a company at the age of 25 and retire at the age of 55 after 30 years service and both have a final salary of £15,000 a year, under the terms of the company scheme both would be entitled to an ultimate pension of £7,650 a year, made up of £5,383 from the company scheme and £2,267 from the state retirement pension. However, retiring at the age of 55, neither would qualify for state retirement pension, so it is company practice to pay a supplement of an amount equivalent to the state retirement pension to its pensioners until they reach state retirement age. That means that a woman would receive that payment for five years until she reached the age of


sixty and a man would receive that payment for 10 years until he reached the age of 65 and was able to claim the state retirement pension.
As I understand it, the way in which the Bill enacts the directive would make such payments to the man between the ages of 60 and 65 unlawful because the woman would no longer be receiving that supplement as she would be in receipt of the state retirement pension. That has considerable consequences, and there are only two ways in which companies operating integrated schemes with common retirement ages would be able to comply with the law. They could remove the supplementary payments paid before state retirement age, but that would be a grave disincentive to people taking early retirement, and the effects on someone whose pension was based on a relatively low salary would be quite catastrophic.
If someone had a finishing salary of £8,000 a year, more than half the total benefit would be removed until they reached state retirement pension age. Alternatively, these schemes could continue to pay the supplement, but they would have to pay it to women between the ages of 60 and 65 so that women retiring after the same length of service and on the same salary would receive a total pension income of £2,267 a year more than their male colleagues. That is no equal treatment, and it cannot be what was in the minds of those in Brussels who drafted the directive.
This has been a matter of correspondence both between myself and my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department and between the company and officials. The company has taken opinion fom a very learned counsel and, equally, the Department has consulted its own lawyers. The lawyers have come to different interpretations of the directive and how it should be implemented. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends in the Department for the diligence they have shown in considering the matter.
I am not a lawyer, so I do not have to form my own view about which legal advice is correct. But even if I concede that the advice the Department has obtained from its lawyers is correct on this occasion, I still urge my hon. Friend to accept the amendment because the consequences I have described amount to a ridiculous piece of Euro-nonsense. If those consequences are what the Eurocrats in Brussels intended, the Government should be prepared to accept the amendment to ensure continuing true equality of treatment and should be prepared to be taken to the European Court by the unelected bunch of bureaucrats sitting on the other side of the English channel.
If we were to be forced to change our law to allow that absurd circumstance to apply, there would be outrage in the House and the country. It would highlight the way in which the powers of Brussels have encroached on the prerogatives of the House and in this case, as in many others, on basic common sense. I urge my hon. Friend to accept the amendment and, if necessary, to have the courage to accept the consequences of the big stick being wagged from Brussels.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I appreciate that the issue my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) has raised is of great importance for Mars, the leading employer in his constituency, and for his constituents who work there,

and I congratulate him on the clarity with which he explained the problem that now confronts not merely Mars but other companies that run integrated pension schemes.
The particular point raised by the amendment concerns the application of the equal treatment requirements in schedule 4 to the Bill to integrated occupational pension schemes. Ironically, those schemes have already gone a considerable way towards the adoption of equal treatment for men and women, and I applaud them for that. They have introduced at 60 a common pension age for both men and women for pensions payable under the scheme. However, in calculating the benefits payable, they treat men and women differently between their 60th and 65th birthdays. Men are paid what is known as a bridging pension to compensate for the fact that, unlike women, they are not entitled to state retirement pension for that period, as my hon. Friend has explained.
The amendment seeks to ensure that schemes such as the Mars scheme will be able to continue to pay bridging pensions to men between 60 and 65 after January 1993, when the schedule comes into effect, but will also be able to restrict the amount of any bridging pension to the current rate of basic state retirement pension. I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend, as he knows, and to those schemes which would stand to benefit from his amendment, but I cannot, I am afraid, recommend to the House that it be incorporated in the Bill, and at the end of my speech I shall be inviting my hon. Friend to withdraw it.
I shall not give all the arguments and background to the position, as the hour is late, but I shall write to my hon. Friend again because he deserves the fullest explanation, as do his constituents and Mars, which has taken a leading part in arguing on his side of the case. I will explain that, subject to certain specified exceptions, the directive requires the adoption of the principle of equal treatment, which means that there can be no discrimination on the basis of sex, either directly or indirectly, in the provisions of occupational pension schemes, and it refers specifically to three areas. These are, first, the scope of the schemes and conditions of access, secondly, the obligation to contribute and the calculation of contributions and thirdly, the calculation of benefits and the conditions governing the duration and retention of entitlement to them.
Paragraph 2(4)(d) of schedule 4, introduced in Committee, already makes use of the permitted derogation to permit schemes to continue to provide different ages at which pensions come into payment to men and women. This is, of course, of no benefit to the schemes which my hon. Friend's amendment would assist. They already have an equal pension age for men and women. The exception applies to pensionable ages for the granting of pensions.
We do not believe that the payment of a higher pension to a man for five years from age 60 comes within the definition of the exception, nor, if a bridging pension is taken to be an arrangement separate from other pensions payable under the scheme to both men and women, can it escape from being a benefit restricted to a single sex.
As my hon. Friend suggested, it would certainly have been easier for the Government to adopt a wider interpretation of the directive, but to do so would have been neither wise nor in the long-term interest of the schemes.
We are unwilling to lay ourselves open to proceedings in Luxembourg that we have failed to comply with the treaty of Rome if we are sure that we are bound to lose. Equally, we would like to protect schemes from proceedings instituted, as it is likely they would be, either by the Commission or by women between 60 and 65, who would rightly submit that they were being treated by their scheme less favourably than men because their scheme had calculated and was paying them a pension on a basis inferior to those of their male colleagues.
I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument and with the situation in which Mars and similar pensions schemes find themselves. I can assure him, however, that we have looked long and hard at the exact wording of the exception and it is with regret that we have concluded that bridging pensions in integrated schemes are beyond the scope of the derogation.
To adopt my hon. Friend's amendment would have the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the treaty and leave both the Government and individual schemes vulnerable to an unfavourable judgment by the European Court. Although I am sorry to have to ask my hon. Friend, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment now.

Mr. Tony Banks: Don't. Die first.

Mr. Watts: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the tone of his reply, but not entirely for its content. I realise that he would make both himself and me rather unpopular with hon. Members of all parties if he had replied to me at much greater length. I should be grateful—as I am sure the House would be—and would find it helpful if my hon. Friend replied at greater length in writing as he has offered to do, and if he would place that reply in the Library of the House so that every hon. Member can see the facts of the Government's position.
In view of the conciliatory tone of my hon. Friend's reply, despite its disappointing content, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Amendments made:

No. 56, in page 42, line 25 leave out 'relevant' and insert 'service-related'.

No. 57, in page 42, line 28 leave out 'relevant' and insert 'service-related'.

No. 58, in page 45, line 29 leave out 'relevant' and insert 'service-related'.

No. 59, in page 45, line 35 leave out 'an exempt' and insert 'a limited'.

No. 60, in page 45, line 36 leave out -"'exempt' and insert "'limited'

No. 61, in page 45, line 48 leave out "'relevant' and insert "`service-related'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 6

PRE-CONSOLIDATION AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 54, line 7, leave out
'For section 4(3) of the principal Act' and insert—
'(1) In section 4 of the principal Act, for subsection (3)'.

No. 9, in page 54, line 16, at end insert—
'(2) In subsection (6C) of that section (amount of secondary Class 1 contribution) for the words "the amount of a secondary Class 1 contribution" there shall be substituted the words "where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable, the amount of that contribution".'.

No. 35, in page 55, line 18, at end insert—

'16A. In sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 12 to that Act (constitution of medical appeal tribunals) for the words "to the panel mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)" there shall be substituted the words "chairman of a tribunal under sub-paragraph (4)(e)".'.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 25

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS: GENERAL PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 7, in page 20, line 26, after 'sections', insert
( Amendments relating to primary Class 1 contributions).'.

No. 37, in page 20, line 26, after 'sections', insert
'(Abolition of earnings rule etc)'.

No. 52, in page 20, line 26, after '3', insert
'( Benefits for women widowed before 11 th April 1988 )'. — [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 26

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS: GENERAL. PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 21, line 15, at end insert—
'(dd) the first regulations made under section 59B(7) of the principal Act (retirement allowance) by virtue of paragraph 8(6) of Schedule ( Abolition of earnings rule etc) to this Act, or
(de) the first regulations made under section 2 of the Social Security Act 1988 (reduced earnings allowance etc) by virtue of paragraph 8(7) of that Schedule, or'. —[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 27

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 21, line 45 at end insert—
'Commissioner" has the same meaning as it has in the principal Act;'. — [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Clause 30

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 54, in page 22, line 40 after '3' insert
'( Benefits for women widowed before 11 th April 1988)'.

No. 81, in page 22, line 40, leave out '13, 14, 15' and insert `to'.

No. 82, in page 22, line 41, at end insert—
'(aa) Schedule—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 7

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 39, in page 59, line 9, leave out from beginning to first 'A' in line 13 and insert `for the words following paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the words—
and, subject to the provisions of this Act, he shall become so entitled on the day on which he attains pensionable age and his entitlement shall continue throughout his life.

(3A) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
(1A)'.

No. 40, in page 59, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
'(9) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a woman's entitlement to a Category B retirement pension shall commence on the day on which the conditions of entitlement become satisfied in her case and shall continue throughout her life.'.

No. 41, in page 59, line 34, leave out paragraph 5—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 10, in page 67, line 16, column 3, at end insert—



`In section 4(6F), the words "primary or".'.

No. 42, in page 67, line 19, column 3, at end insert—



'In section 14(6), the words following paragraph (c).



In section 15(6)(a), the words "but have not retired from regular employment".'.

No. 43, in page 67, column 3, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert—



`Section 27(3), (4) and (5).



In section 28(1)(a), the words "and has retired from regular employment".



Section 29(5)(a).



In section 30, subsection (I), in subsection (3), in paragraph (a), the words "retired from regular employment or has otherwise" and the words "retired or" and subsection (6)(a).'.

No. 47, in page 68, line 10, column 3, at end insert—



`In Schedule 4, paragraph 39(a).'.

No. 48, in page 68, line 29, column 3, at end insert—



`In Schedule 4, paragraph 11.'.

No. 21, in page 68, line 35, column 3, at end insert—



In section 41(1), the words "section 30(1) of this Act and to".
Section 48(2) and (3).'.

No. 45, in page 67, line 50, column 3, at end insert —



'and "30(1 )".'.

No. 46, in page 67, line 51, column 3. at beginning insert—



'In section 8(1), the words "who has retired from regular employment".



Section 11.'.

No. 49, in page 68, line 39, column 3, at end insert—



'Section 63(1)(a)(ii).'.

No. 50, in page 68, line 46, column 3, leave out `paragraph 3(3)(c)' and insert—



in paragraph 3, in subparagraph (3)(b), the words "30(1)", subparagraph (3)(c), subparagraph (3)(c), subparagraph (4)(b) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.'.

No. 51, in page 68, line 51, at end insert—
'1988 c. 7. Social Security Act 1988. Section 2(9).'—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Order for Third Reading read. — [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Mr. Peter Lloyd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is a relatively short Bill but it covers a great deal of ground and brings in some welcome and necessary changes—changes improved and extended by Government amendments and those brought forward by Opposition Members which the Government have been persuaded to adopt—not often enough, I am sure the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs Beckett) will tell us shortly for the full satisfaction of Labour Members, but often enough, I hope, for hon. Members on both sides to feel that the time spent in Committee was worthwhile.
The Bill will reform the structure of national insurance contributions, removing the steps that were a heavy disincentive for employees to increase the hours they worked over the lower earnings limit, and giving a saving for nearly all class 1 contributors of up to £3 a week.
The Bill will also abolish the earnings rule, removing the restriction on people enjoying their pensions while contributing to the economy and their own incomes. About 2,500 workers over pension age will be affected immediately, but it is over the coming years that the full impact will be felt, as those coming up to 60 or 65 will no longer have to decide whether to make the declaration that they are giving up work to secure their pension, thereby in effect writing themselves out of the job market.
The Bill also applies equal treatment in occupational pensions-no discrimination between men and women as regards the right to join a scheme, liability or entitlement


to pay contributions, rate of contributions or, as we discussed when debating the last amendment, entitlement to benefits.
Particularly welcome, I believe, is the clause raising the upper age limit for mobility allowance from 75 to 80. The Bill will also put liability for injury—again, as we have debated tonight—on a reasonable and equitable footing, with the insurer obliged to reimburse the state for the cost of the plaintiff's benefits while he was off sick as well as the plaintiff for the injury itself.
The Bill also introduces the new concept of employment trial for those who have been out of work for more than six months as an encouragement to broaden the range of jobs that they feel able to consider. But the central feature of the Bill is the change that we have debated extensively today—the requirement that in future every unemployed person, as a condition of receiving benefit, should be actively seeking work.
Most unemployed people do this on their own initiative —because they want to get back into a job—but a minority do not, as some Opposition Members have conceded. But, they say, the present rules are strong enough to deal with that minority. My hon. Friend the Minister of State showed conclusively that that comfortable assumption is wrong. The current rules are sufficient to ensure that people are available for work and have drawn attention to that fact by signing on, but not to do any more.
That is unfair to those in work, many of whom are not well off, who pay the taxes and contributions which finance unemployment benefits. It is unfair also to those who are without work but who are assiduously seeking it. It is unfair in the long run to the individuals themselves and their families, and it is unfair to the nation at large when there are growing numbers of unfilled vacancies.
Opposition Members will say that the unemployed will be pressed into a mechanical, useless and soul-destroying round of chasing after jobs that are not there or are unattainable. Emphatically that is not so. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State made absolutely clear, the purpose is to provide encouragement, incentive and, indeed, where necessary in some cases, pressure on those without jobs to do what the majority of unemployed people already do willingly and on their own initiative.
Local staff will be required to know the local job market and to judge what is realistic, fair and reasonable for an individual in terms of his or her age, health and experience.

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister confirm that the Bill will also price people into work by insisting that unemployed people accept a job at whatever low rate they are offered, regardless of whether they can live on it or not?

Mr. Lloyd: The going rate will no longer be a reason for people to refuse work, but, of course, it will be one of the many considerations that benefit officers will take into account, as my hon. Friend made clear.
The "actively seeking work" change is fully justified in simple justice. There is no better time to make it than now, when there is an increasing range of jobs to be had and the most severe constraint on the nation's further economic growth is that so many of them remain empty. I urge the House to give this excellent Bill a Third Reading.

Mrs. Beckett: The main impact of this year's Social Security Bill will stem—and is intended to stem, as the Minister accepted in his final remarks—from clauses 8, 9 and 10. Those clauses have been explained—I will not use the word "justified"—by the Government on the basis of their reaction, in the main, to a survey of the London labour market which they argue is supported by other labour market surveys, although many who are familiar with the detail of all those reports would contest that view.
One could argue in any event that the London labour market is not typical, but let us not worry about that, because the Government did not. We acknowledge that it was reported in that survey that some unemployed people in London had not looked for work in the previous week and that some has not looked for work in the previous four weeks. On that one feature of that one report the central part of the legislation seems to have been based. All the other aspects of the report, all the questions that it left unanswered and all the myths that it laid have been completely ignored.
Let us begin by taking those who said that they had not looked for work in the previous week or weeks. They were not asked in that survey, as they had been in others, why they had not looked for work at that time. When the Secretary of State referred at the Tory party conference to the number who seemed to be in that position, he failed to mention—no doubt through an oversight—that about 250,000 were sick or disabled. Even those who do not come into that category have indicated in other surveys that if they had ceased looking for work every week, it was due to a realistic assessment, based on immediate and direct experience, of their chances of getting a job in the current labour market conditions.
The Government have suggested, as did the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State a moment ago, that because labour market conditions have eased the provisions of the Bill are needed to ensure that those who have despaired and, because of their experience, have ceased to seek work are put in touch with the eased market. Other labour market surveys show that people who at one time ceased actively to pursue work every week step up their job search of their own volition as soon as it becomes apparent that more jobs may be available. That evidence supports the view that clause 7 is not needed to encourage an active search for work where there is any point in that search for the individual.
The survey on which the legislation is based showed that employers are reluctant to hire the long-term unemployed even when they have suitable skills or experience. Nothing is being done about that in the legislation. The survey also showed that unemployed people do not have unrealistic expectations of levels of pay and that they are not ruling themselves out because they are seeking wages which employers cannot or are not prepared to offer. Yet clause 9 is based on the assumption that that is happening.
Labour market surveys show, not surprisingly, that those with family responsibilities look harder for work than those without them. Yet under clause 10 people with family responsibilities will see all rights to any income, even income support, placed in jeopardy in order, so the Government say, to encourage them to look harder for


work, although the survey on which the legislation is based shows that they do not need encouragement when work is available.
What this survey and every survey of the labour market shows most of all is that by no stretch of statistical creativity can the Government make the number of jobs without workers fit the number of workers without jobs. On even the most favourable reading of the unemployment figures, two out of three—or, more likely, five out of six —have no opportunity of employment, no matter how hard they seek it. Under the Bill, they will be put under pressure to give assurances that they will take any job with any wages and conditions, even if it is temporary work, or they will be disqualified from receiving benefit. The Minister has said that that will not happen. That is what the Government said last year when we warned them that taking all rights to benefit away from the 16 to I8-year-olds would result in many of them wandering destitute through our streets. Since then, Ministers have had to take emergency action to deal with some of the problems that they said last year would not exist.
The Bill will do nothing to help most of the unemployed to find work. Far from encouraging those with problems, it will discourage those who continue not to find work by rubbing their noses in their repeated failure week after week, year in and year out.
The Bill is intended to reduce further the numbers of registered unemployed. It is intended to foster the climate in which people are forced into jobs even with atrocious pay and conditions. It will cause hardship, distress, agony and anguish to many who, despite deprivation, seek to maintain their pride and their independence of spirit. I fear that it will lead to increased mental breakdown and even to an increase in the number of suicides. That seems to us a high price to pay and a serious risk to run for the sake of pandering to the prejudices of the comfortable, the secure and the ignorant. It is a price that no responsible Government would be prepared to pay and a risk that no responsible Government would be willing to run, and it will be a lasting shame even to the present irresponsible Administration.

Mr. Burns: I do not intend to speak for long, but I should like to make three points.
During the controversy over the most contentious part of the Bill, clause 5, which has been welcomed on both sides of the House, has been overlooked. The clause implements my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision to increase to 80 years the age limit for mobility allowance.
Secondly, the changes to the rules on income support and housing benefit for those 16 and 17-year-olds who are genuinely estranged from their parents are right and should be welcomed by everyone.
Thirdly, on the more controversial topic of the "actively seeking work" clause, I accept that there is a strong difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. I believe that when the clause is in practice it will not bring about the dire results mentioned by Opposition Members. The vast majority of those who, sadly, are unemployed and desperately want to go back to work will have nothing

to fear from that part of the Bill. It will help to fill the loophole open to people who genuinely do not want to work.
I am pleased that we have come to the Third Reading of the Bill. I wholeheartedly support it and look forward to seeing it on the statute book later this summer.

Mr. Tony Banks: I find it somewhat sickening that a number of Conservative Members have suddenly turned up in the Chamber after not having been here this evening. They have come, no doubt, from their good dinners further to penalise the poor and the vulnerable. There is something especially nasty about the way that this has been done. Conservative Members would not be prepared to accept the conditions that they impose on other people. They would not be prepared to accept the sort of strictures that attack the poor and the vulnerable which are delivered across the Chamber.
The Government have deliberately created mass unemployment as a policy. They have created mass unemployment as a way of trying to break the powers of the trade union movement and of forcing wages down. The Government have continually attacked forms of employment protection which were fought for before they reached the statute book. The Government have attacked the unemployed. They have created unemployment and they have attacked the people they have forced on the dole.
The Bill is vindictive. It is part of the Government's strategy to force wages down. We know what Victorian values mean to this Government. I am sure that some Conservative Members would be quite happy to see little boys once again earning pennies by going up chimneys. Through the Bill the Government are trying to compel people to take low-paid work—not the kind of work that Conservative Members would be prepared to do.
We have the most obscene values in this society. Some of the most useless people—and I include some Conservative Members in that—receive the highest wages in society. If I were run over tonight—if I were, it would probably be by a car driven by a Conservative Member —who would I want to come to my assistance? Would I want 100 stockbrokers or a nurse? That question is rhetorical and I know who I would want to assist me. However, we must bear in mind the amount of money a stockbroker earns in comparison to a nurse's salary.

Mr. Winnick: With regard to the Victorian society, has my hon. Friend seen today's television news and reports in the press relating to the first survey in 100 years of people living and sleeping in derelict areas? As many people are sleeping out in the cold only a few minutes walk from this place as there were 100 years ago. Is that not another way in which we are returning to the values of Victorian Britain?

Mr. Banks: It is very interesting that the Salvation Army carried out that survey into homelessness in London. The Government have stopped keeping statistics on that subject. When the Government are confronted with the nasty realities of the consequences of their policies, what do they do? They ensure that no one collects the relevant statistics and say that the problem does not exist. It is not surprising that homelessness and poverty have doubled under this Government. It is part of the Government's strategy to attack the weakest, most


vulnerable and those suffering most as a result of the Government's policies—[Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members cannot wait to get into their cars and taxis to leave this place. However, I will not facilitate their easy egress from the House. The way in which Conservative Members were not in the Chamber during the Report stage, how they did not listen and are not concerned is sickening. They are just waiting for the end of Third Reading so they can clear off. I will not facilitate them.
It is evidence of the Tory Government's hypocrisy that they always claim that the rich need the incentive of more money to work, but the poor need less. [Interruption.] I assume that Conservative Members have had the benefit of some very good dinners tonight—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I would be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would get on with his speech.

Mr. Banks: It is difficult. I would get on with my speech, but is obvious to me that I am faced by a rather unruly and hostile mob. Conservative Members are making it difficult for me to get on with my speech. A little earlier I heard a Tory Whip complain most bitterly that a Division on the Bill had spoilt his dinner. Jolly good. I am glad that it spoilt his dinner.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not relevant.

Mr. Banks: Indeed it is not, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, my point is that all the Conservative Members want to do is to get on with their dinners, get into their taxis and get home. They do not give a damn about the people whom they have affected by the Bill.
The Bill is hypocritical and vicious and it is just like Tory Members. It is a snapshot of Tory Members. It is typical of this Gradgrind Government and the hon. Members who support them. I shall oppose the Bill in the Lobby.

Mr. David Nicholson: Having speeded up a speech a few weeks ago so that the hon. Member for Newham. North-West (Mr. Banks) could make his speech and then have his dinner, I regret his remarks about dinners.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will forgive me if I pay tribute to the role played by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in getting the Bill through a toughly argued but civilised Committee stage. That role has continued since the Bill left Committee. I cite as an example the response to the points made about 16 to 17-year-olds and the handsome tribute which was paid to my hon. Friend by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on Monday, which appears in Hansard at column 751. My hon. Friend the Minister also acknowledged this evening that the regulations in the Bill will take account of work-related expenses, which is helpful.
I say this in the context of the bilious attack made earlier this evening by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). We learned nothing new from that attack about the Minister or, indeed, the hon. Member for Bradford, South.
There have been several changes to the Bill since it left Committee. Those changes, which have been referred to

this evening, have considerably improved the Bill. For example, the Bill implements the Budget cuts in employees' national insurance contributions. Many Conservative Members have been pressing for that for some time. Reference has also been made to the abolition of the earnings limit. Other improvements include improvements in widows' pensions for the 40 to 45-year-old group and the new premiums for pensioners aged 75 and over.
The most emotional debate in Committee was that on the 16 to 17-year-olds, and the Government have responded to that. The most emotional debate on Report was not that on child benefit. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to extend the take-up of family credit. I and others believe that this is essential to meet the criticisms which have been levelled by Conservative Members towards the Government's policy on child benefit. In an oral question a week last Monday, I welcomed the measures being taken by the Government.
The most emotional debate on Report was that on transitional benefits, which I do not intend to discuss further. I simply quote again the pledge made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary:
We shall continue to consider the information available to us, and where it is evident that there is pressure on a particular group we shall act accordingly."—[Official Report, 24 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 743.]
I welcome that commitment by my hon. Friend and I welcome the Bill and the various measures and improvements that it makes.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 165.

[Division No. 181]
[10.37 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nicholas


Aitken, Jonathan
Burns, Simon


Alexander, Richard
Burt, Alistair


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Butcher, John


Allason, Rupert
Butler, Chris


Amess, David
Butterfill, John


Amos, Alan
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Aspinwall, Jack
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Chapman, Sydney


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Conway, Derek


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cope, Rt Hon John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick


Blackburn, Dr John Q.
Couchman, James


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cran, James


Body, Sir Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Curry, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwlch)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowis, John
Dicks, Terry


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Evennett, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas






Fallon, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Favell, Tony
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lightbown, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lord, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forth, Eric
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McCrindle, Robert


Fox, Sir Marcus
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Franks, Cecil
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


French, Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gale, Roger
Madel, David


Gill, Christopher
Major, Rt Hon John


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mans, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maples, John


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marland, Paul


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Marlow, Tony


Gorst, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
May hew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Grist, Ian
Mellor, David


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hague, William
Miller, Sir Hal


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Jeremy
Moate, Roger


Hannam, John
Monro, Sir Hector


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Morrison, Sir Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hawkins, Christopher
Moss, Malcolm


Hayes, Jerry
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hayward, Robert
Mudd, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Neubert, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholls, Patrick


Hill, James
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Holt, Richard
Norris, Steve


Hordern, Sir Peter
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howard, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Paice, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Ingram, Adam
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irving, Charles
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Price, Sir David


Janman, Tim
Raffan, Keith


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Redwood, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knowles, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Latham, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)





Shersby, Michael
Trippier, David


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Summerson, Hugo
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thurnham, Peter



Townend, John (Bridlington)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Tony Durant.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foster, Derek


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foulkes, George


Armstrong, Hilary
Fraser, John


Ashton, Joe
Fyfe, Maria


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Galbraith, Sam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Galloway, George


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Barron, Kevin
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Battle, John
George, Bruce


Beckett, Margaret
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bermingham, Gerald
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grocott, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter


Buckley, George J.
Henderson, Doug


Callaghan, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howells, Geraint


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clay, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cummings, John
Ingram, Adam


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Greville


Cunningham, Dr John
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dixon, Don
Kirkwood, Archy


Dobson, Frank
Lambie, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lamond, James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leadbitter, Ted


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Lewis, Terry


Eadie, Alexander
Livsey, Richard


Eastham, Ken
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Loyden, Eddie


Fatchett, Derek
McAllion, John


Faulds, Andrew
McAvoy, Thomas


Fearn, Ronald
Macdonald, Calum A.


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
McKelvey, William


Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max


Flynn, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice






Marek, Dr John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Marshall, David (Shetileston)
Parry, Robert


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Patchett, Terry


Martlew, Eric
Pendry, Tom


Maxton, John
Pike, Peter L.


Meacher, Michael
Powell, Ray (Ogrnore)


Meale, Alan
Prescott, John


Michael, Alun
Quin, Ms Joyce


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Richardson, Jo


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Robertson, George


Mowlam, Marjorie
Rogers, Allan


Mullin, Chris
Rooker, Jeff


Murphy, Paul
Ruddock, Joan


Nellist, Dave
Sedgemore, Brian


O'Brien, William
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


O'Neill, Martin
Short, Clare





Sillars, Jim
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Skinner, Dennis
Wareing, Robert N.


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Soley, Clive
Wigley, Dafydd


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Steinberg, Gerry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Stott, Roger
Worthington, Tony


Strang, Gavin
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)



Turner, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Wall, Pat
Mr. Allen McKay.


Walley, Joan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Planning Consents (Wales)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Tim Janman: This is the first Adjournment debate in which I have spoken, and if someone had predicted that it would be a debate concentrating on Wales, or, more accurately, on a particular part of Wales—the district authority area of Anglesey—that would have been difficult to believe.
I raise this issue on behalf of a constituent who wrote to me on 14 April. Tragically, two days later that gentleman died. However, I decided to go ahead, and, in a sense, this debate is in his memory. In his letter to me he said that he had written to a builder in north Wales asking for information about a building development—17 properties—taking place in the community of Cohen Wen, Llanfairpwll, Anglesey. I shall read the letter that my constituent received from the builder:
Dear Mr. Lovell,
Thank you for your letter dated 6th April, the contents of which are noted. We have pleasure in enclosing details of our development at Cohen Wen but should warn you at this stage that unless you are moving to Anglesey with your work, or you are retiring to the area having been born there, we would be unable to sell a property to you on that development. A condition of our planning consent was that we sold new homes only to existing residents of Gwynedd or those with relatives in the area, or those born in the area and returning to retire. If we can provide any further information please do not hesitate to contact us.
Under the notice of decision within the section 52 planning agreement drawn up between the authority and the builder, the restraints imposed are even worse than the builder first thought. Paragraph 9 of that agreement states:
The dwellings hereby approved shall only be occupied by a person currently residing or employed within the county of Gwynedd, including any dependants of such a person residing with him, or a widow or widower of such a person.
My constituent, who fought for the United Kingdom in Malaya and Burma during the second world war, made the point that he always felt that he had been fighting for a free country—for a country in which there is freedom of movement, and in which a person has a right to buy a house in one part of the country, or sell one, move, and then buy a house in another part of that country. I am talking not about a wealthy man who is looking for a second home, but about a man who worked hard all his life in an industrial area—in south Essex—and who, on nearing the end of his working life, decided that he wanted to retire to a part of the United Kingdom that he liked, and where he wished to spend the last years of his life.
Although I accept that there is considerable concern in different parts of the United Kingdom—not just in Wales —that local people are not priced out of their local housing market, there are far more subtle ways of ensuring that that is achieved than by resorting to the blunderbuss used by Anglesey council. Although the provision of housing for local people is important, it is also important to remember the right of any United Kingdom citizen to live in any part of the United Kingdom.
Since receiving my constituent's letter, I have contacted the builder, who is the piggy in the middle of this sad affair. The builder is currently taking legal advice from the House Builders Federation, which I hope will be that the council acted unlawfully.
Given that the caveats in question are contained within a section 52 agreement, they apply in perpetuity. However, the policy that they seek to pursue does not work in practice. Not so long ago, the builder had sold eight of the 17 properties on the development—presumably to local people who met the caveats specified in the section 52 agreement. However, seven of those eight purchasers, on learning that they themselves could only resell the properties to others who satisfied the council's caveats, cancelled their purchases. So the builder, because of the council's unreasonable attitude, is finding it difficult to sell the properties that it built.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Has the hon. Gentleman had the courtesy to contact Ynys Môn borough council about that matter? If he has, was he informed that there are 28,088 houses on the island, of which fewer than 200 are subject to any restriction of the type to which he refers, leaving any of the 99 per cent. of the remaining properties that may be on the market at any one time free to be purchased by his constituent?
Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the island has three designated growth areas on which there are no planning restrictions? They are at Amlwch, Holyhead and Llangefni. Thirdly, does he know, as a result of his consultation with the borough council, that these restrictions do not apply to a person who moves to the island as a result of employment? Fourthly, is he aware that the planning consent to which he refers has not yet been completed?

Mr. Janman: On the last point, there seems to be some confusion or lack of communication between the building company—which is taking legal advice from the House Builders Federation about the sort of nonsense that this council is pursuing—and the council. I have not spoken to the council, because of what it has laid out clearly in section 52 of the agreement, of which I have a copy. I remind the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) of what I have said. A person living in my constituency, or a person living in Caernarfon, Swansea, Fishguard or Cardiff, has the right to choose to live anywhere in the United Kingdom. By "anywhere", I mean any specific house, road, village or town in the country. This is not an English—Welsh issue. The sort of constraints put down clearly by this local authority impede the right of a citizen of the United Kingdom to choose to buy a certain residence in which he or she, as a resident of this country, wishes to live.
It is interesting that, since I did an interview on HTV television on Monday night, I have already had a letter of support for what I am saying from two residents of the county of Gwynedd. They fully agree with what I have been saying. The sales director of the company concerned has lived in Wales for 22 years. She has a Welsh-speaking son, yet she, for example, would not be permitted, under this section 52 agreement, to buy one of the properties that her own building company has built at this development.
It is not in the interests of the House for me to be over-dramatic about this affair. I emphasise that, perhaps unlike my constituent, who understandably got slightly the wrong end of the stick about what was happening, I do not see this as an English versus Welsh issue. We should not take a course whereby local authorities are legally able to put up an obstacle—in this case an Anglesey wall—against people coming into an area and being able to buy the


house they wish. Such a situation could get out of control. Certain communities could react against what they saw other communities doing. The result could be a silly and dire situation.
I have used the opportunity tonight to bring this series of events to the attention of my hon. Friend. He can see that this situation caused a great deal of heartache to one of my constituents. It is tragic that, only two days after writing to me, he died suddenly. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the ramifications of this case. I hope he will tell the House tonight that the Government will not support local authorities putting such tight restraints on housing developments.
Many housing developments are taking place in my constituency. The local authority provides for low-cost housing through the use of housing associations buying a percentage of properties in any one development. What has happened in this affair gave a bad impression to one of my constituents. I hope that the situation can be reviewed. If possible, I hope that regulations can be issued by the Welsh Office and used to ensure that local authorities cannot use section 52 agreements in this way.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. It gives me an opportunity to clear the air on a matter about which there has been some confusion. Before I begin, may I express my condolences to the family of his constituent who raised this matter with him and who, as he said, died recently.
My hon. Friend will understand that responsibility for local development control rests with the local planning authorities. In this instance the planning authority is the Isle of Anglesey borough council, and the case is still in its hands. As I understand it, a formal decision on the application for planning permission to build houses at Collen Wen, Llanfairpwll, has not yet been announced, although the applicant has been given a clear indication that permission will be available subject to certain conditions.

Mr. Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Grist: Not at this point.
As there is a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State against either a refusal of planning permission—although that seems not to be likely here—or conditions imposed on such a permission, it would not be right for me to make any detailed observations on this case, or indeed on any other particular case in Anglesey or north Wales. I can, however, attempt to clarify our policy on the use of conditions in planning permissions in a general sense, in the hope of putting my hon. Friend's mind at rest.
Jointly with the Department of the Environment, the Welsh Office issued a circular on the subject in 1985. This circular, 1/85 "The Use of Conditions in Planning Permission", makes it very clear that conditions should be imposed only where necessary and where reasonable. They must also be enforceable, precise and relevant both to planning and to the development to be permitted. The circular makes specific reference to the use of conditions to secure particular types of domestic occupancy, and puts very cogently the reasons why the practice should, except in exceptional circumstances, be avoided.
Paragraph 77 of the annex to the circular states:
if the development of a site for housing is an acceptable use of the land there will seldom be any good reason on land use planning grounds to restrict the occupancy of those houses to a particular type of person e.g. those already living or working in the area, or holidaymakers. To impose such a condition is to draw an artificial and unwarranted distinction between new houses or new conversions and existing houses that are not subject to such restrictions on occupancy or sale. It may deter house builders from providing homes for which there is local demand and building societies from providing mortgage finance. It may also impose hardship on owners who subsequently need to sell. It involves too detailed and onerous an application of development control and too great an interference in the rights of individual ownership. In the view of the Secretaries of State, such conditions should therefore not be imposed save in the most exceptional cases where there are clear and specific circumstances that warrant allowing an individual house or extension on a site where development would not normally be permitted.
In other words, in Wales—as in England—a planning authority must, if challenged, be prepared to demonstrate land use issues to justify an occupancy condition. The most usual of those exceptional issues, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, is that which relates to the occupancy of dwellings erected for farmers and farm workers. Otherwise occupancy conditions are very much the exception rather than the rule. That is not to say, however, that it is never appropriate for local planning authorities to consider, and even give priority to, specific needs which they may have identified in their areas. Whereas it will never be right for the statutory planning system to be used to discriminate against any particular groups in the community, it can be used to respond sensitively to particular needs.
There are ways within the planning system in which such problems can be settled without the use of planning conditions, and it may be helpful if I touch on one of them. Although most planning policy and practice is common to both England and Wales—with varying degrees of emphasis, of course—at least one issue arises in Wales alone. My hon. Friend may be aware of concerns that have been expressed about the future of the Welsh language —particularly in areas such as Anglesey where a majority of the population speaks Welsh, but where a number of social and demographic factors have resulted in a decline in the language over the past decades. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken a number of positive steps to help the language. They include the issue in December last year of a circular clarifying the position of Welsh in relation to development plans and development control.
The circular explains that land use policies in structure and local plans can take into account, in appropriate circumstances, the implications of planning policies for the Welsh language. For development control decisions, the circular reminds planning authorities that when an application is made to them for planning permission they must have regard to the provisions of the development plan—as far as is material to the application—and to any other material considerations. The circular goes on to say that policies that relate to the needs of and interests of the Welsh language may properly be among those considerations, and makes it clear that that requirement bears equally on the Secretary of State and his inspectors in considering planning appeals.
Decisions in individual cases where the needs and interests of the Welsh language may be a material consideration, whether that consideration flows from


policies in the development plan or elsewhere, must, as with all other planning applications, be based on planning grounds only and must be reasonable. While it has been held that material considerations can cover a wide field, they must be genuine planning considerations—that is, they must be related to the purpose of planning legislation, which is to regulate the development and use of land. In determining planning applications where the language is an issue, the Secretary of State and his inspectors expect local planning authorities to produce specific evidence of the land use planning considerations which have led to their decision.
My hon. Friend will note that the advice emphasises the need for planning decisions to be based on planning grounds only and to be reasonable. Local planning authorities in Wales will be aware that no encouragement is given by this advice for the use of planning conditions which we do not see as an appropriate mechanism for implementing local policies formulated under this advice.
The power to impose conditions on a planning permission can enable many development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise be necessary to refuse planning permission. Sensitive use of conditions can improve the quality of development control and enhance public confidence in the planning system. In considering whether a particular condition is necessary, one key test is whether planning permission would have to be refused if the condition were not to be imposed. If not, such a condition needs special and precise justification. The same criteria and tests are applied by my right hon. Friend and his inspectors in deciding whether a condition appealed against should be retained.
I need not remind my hon. Friend that the purpose of the planning system is to regulate the development and use of land in the public interest. Whether a proposal would affect the locality generally and unacceptably may be a legitimate public interest, and the planning authority may indeed feel that it has to protect it. At the end of the day, however, its powers under the planning Act are concerned with land use planning matters and it is to these that it must relate its decision whether to approve or to refuse or to apply conditions.
We are currently looking in Wales at ways in which some of the problems associated with the provision of low-cost housing for people living in rural areas can be tackled, and in particular whether the planning system has anything to offer.
I announced at this morning's sitting of the Welsh Grand Committee that I shall be seeking discussions between the Welsh Office and the relevant local authorities to examine this area of rural housing. It will be my intention, however, that any answers which we may find should be within clear planning guidelines, should be seen as fair as between different groups, and that any steps taken should result in real benefit to those in housing need. This is not of course an issue unique to Wales, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in this regard. But in Wales we have our national and cultural setting to take account of and the discussions which we are putting in hand will be against that background as well.
It is clear that one of the options that we shall be exploring will concern itself with how the planning system

might help both to provide affordable housing in rural areas and to ensure that houses thus provided remain available for that purpose despite changes of occupancy that may perforce have to take place. I shall, of course, have in mind my hon. Friend's strictures about occupancy conditions when we come to consider the results of these discussions in Wales.

Mr. Janman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Grist: I do not think that it would be suitable for me to do so at this moment.
Whether the planning policies in question deal with the Welsh language or any other issue, they are best expressed in an up-to-date and relevant development plan. Authorities should recognise that policies in approved development plans carry much more weight in places of dispute than informal policies expressed elsewhere, possibly without having been publicly aired.
Late last year my right hon. Friend, jointly with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, published a planning policy guidance note on local plans. In that they urged the importance of local plans as the basis for sound and effective development control, especially in areas where there is much pressure for development—and that, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, often includes pleasant rural areas to which people wish to retire.
Some authorities still make a practice of using as a basis for control of development informal or bottom-drawer plans which have not been subject to the statutory procedures of public consultation and formal adoption. Others have chosen to do without any form of land use plan and have sought to deal with planning applications ad hoc as they come forward. Neither approach is a satisfactory alternative to the prescription and adoption of the statutory local plan. Informal plans carry less weight for development control purposes and provide less satisfactory guidance to developers and reassurance to local people about the future pattern of development than a properly prepared and adopted local plan. If there is no adopted local plan, local authorities can find it more difficult to justify refusing planning permission or to justify planning conditions and to support their reasons on appeal.
My hon. Friend will no doubt know that the Government plan changes to the development plan system. The district development plan—in effect a local plan for a whole district—will form the central feature of the new system. As that is the level at which the vast majority of planning applications are dealt with, district councils will be made responsible for preparing a comprehensive plan for the whole of their local authority area, setting out planning policies for land use which are to be applied in dealing with planning applications. That plan will, of course, have to be consistent with national and county policies and with any regional planning guidelines that may be issued in Wales. The aim is to obtain a single development plan, which every authority will be obliged to prepare within a given time scale. That will form a working tool to guide the district authority, the developer and the public alike. Legislation will be introduced to bring about those changes. But pending that, it is important that the preparation of local plans should move ahead briskly. The work done will not be lost


in any new system of development plan since provision will be made to enable up-to-date local plans to be carried over into the new system.
The issue that my hon. Friend raised was about planning conditions and I hope that what I have said has, at least, made clear to him the Government's policy towards particular kinds of conditions in Wales and about the context in which planning policies in the Principality are set. At the end of the day, it is for the respective developer to decide whether to challenge a local decision by appealing to the Secretary of State. I am satisfied that the issues that have arisen during this debate are well understood by developers and planning authorities alike and that the Government's view on the use of planning conditions, by and large, is accepted.
The Government remain of the view that the present planning system provides the best mechanism available to use for securing the right balance between achieving much needed development and conserving the best in our natural and man-made environments. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that there is no cause in the operation of the system in Wales to doubt that that is so.

Mr. Janman: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's long exposition on planning in Wales. However, I want to make two brief points on which he will, perhaps, reply to me. First, unless I misheard my hon. Friend, he said that a decision was still awaited on planning permission for this particular development. However, when I spoke to the building company involved yesterday, it told me that the two show homes for the development were virtually completed—and would be completed in the next week—and that a further six homes were already under construction. I do not understand how construction can already have started on the development—obviously some time ago—if the final decision has not been taken on planning permission.
Secondly, I do not understand how the Welsh language has any relevance to planning decisions, whether in Wales or elsewhere. If people come to a particular area, the number of people there increases and so does the number of people who may wish to take up the language. We are not talking here about people leaving Wales and taking their language with them. I have to say—[Interruption.] I would be pleased, Madam Deputy Speaker, if there were no such sedentary interventions—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order.

Mr. Janman: However, of course, the Welsh language is an important part of our British heritage. We are not talking about trying to stop people leaving parts of Wales and about the language dying; we are talking about the opportunity for people to come into Wales. As a number of those moving in are taking the opportunity of retiring from England, Scotland or elsewhere in Wales and are going to live in parts of the Principality where the language is still strong, it is not inconceivable that some of those people would have quite a bit of spare time on their hands and might want to learn the language of that part of the United Kingdom.
My first specific point, which my hon. Friend the Minister may or may not wish to come back on, is why., if a planning decision has not yet been made, construction work has already started on eight of the properties, and is nearly completed on two. Secondly, given my comments, can my hon. Friend put a little more meat on the bones of why a planning decision has any relevance whatsoever to the Welsh language?
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.